SfttlOO 


••/  HE  volumes  of  the  University  of  Michigan 
Studies  are  published  by  authority  of  the 
Executive  Board  of  the  Graduate  Depart- 
ment of  the  University  of  Michigan.  A  list 
of  the  volumes  thus  far  published  or  ar- 
ranged for  is  given  at  the  end  of  this  volume. 


(Untperei^^  of  Qtlic^tgan  ^(Mc6 
HUMANISTIC  SEBIFS 


VOLUME  V 


SOURCES   OF   THE  SYNOPTIC 
GOSPELS 


•Tl 


he?)<:^o. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
ATLANTA   •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


SOURCES 

OF  THE 

SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 


Y 

.   PA 


CARL  S.  PATTON 

FIRST   CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH 
COLUMBUS,   OHIO 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:    MACMILLAN  &  COMPANY,   LIMITED 
I9I5 

All  Rights  Reserved 


Copyright    191 5    Bv 
Carl  S.    Patton 


Printed   August,  191 5 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  ol  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

The  purpose  of  this  study  is  twofold:  first,  to  give 
some  account  of  the  investigations  recently  made  in  the 
Synoptic  Problem,  and  the  present  status  of  scholarly 
opinion  concerning  it;  secondly,  upon  the  basis  of  such 
established  results,  to  push  the  inquiry  into  certain  items 
a  step  farther. 

The  first  part  of  the  work,  including  pages  3-120,  tho 
largely  occupied  with  results  reached  by  many  different 
scholars,  and  bringing  the  matter  up  to  where  the  writer 
adds  his  own  more  personal  contribution,  is  yet  not  a 
mere  survey  of  results  attained.  The  writer  has  expressed 
his  own  judgment  freely  thruout  it,  as  to  the  merits  of 
arguments  of  others,  and  as  to  the  points  involved  in  the 
discussion.  But  his  more  personal  contribution  lies  in 
the  analysis  of  the  groundwork  Q  into  the  two  recensions, 
Q  Mt  and  Q  Lk. 

The  one  book  constantly  in  the  writer's  hands  during 
the  preparation  of  this  study  was  A.  Huck's  Synopse  der 
drei  ersten  Evangelien}  Without  some  such  parallel 
edition  of  the  Greek  Gospels  constantly  open  before 
him,  one  can  neither  write  nor  read  profitably  upon  the 
Synoptic  Question.  The  question  of  originality,  and  of 
giving  credit  for  arguments  and  suggestions  derived  from 
other  students,  in  a  study  of  this  sort,  is  extremely 
difficult.  In  the  minute  comparison  of  passages  in  one 
Gospel  with  passages  in  another,  many  of  the  differences 
and  resemblances  noted  are  part  of  the  working  material 

'Mohr,   Tubingen,  1906,  3d  ed.      A  fourth  edition  of  this  valuable 
book  appeared  in  1911,  but  without  important  changes. 


vi  Preface 

of  most  writers  upon  the  Synoptic  Problem;  when  one 
has  worked  thru  the  analyses  of  other  students,  has  made 
their  results  his  own,  and  has  also  made  his  own  observa- 
tions upon  the  basis  of  them,  it  becomes  almost  impos- 
sible for  him  to  say  what  part  of  the  total  result  is  due  to 
himself  and  for  what  part  he  is  indebted  to  others.  The 
writer  is  more  deeply  indebted  to  Paul  Wernle,  Sir  John 
Hawkins,  and  the  authors  of  the  Oxford  Studies,  than  to 
anyone  else.  The  latter  book  came  out  after  this  stud}- 
had  been  completed  but  the  results  have  been  revised 
somewhat  under  its  influence.  I  have  attempted  to 
give  credit  in  footnotes  for  suggestions  received  from  many 
sources,  but  many  must  have  gone  unnoticed. 

I  am  under  deep  obligation  to  the  kind  friends  who 
have  encouraged  and  made  possible  the  publication  of 
this  Study,  particularly  to  Mr.  William  H.  Murphy,  of 
Detroit. 

Carl  S.  Patton 

First  Congregational  Church 

Columbus,  Ohio 

August,  1914 


CONTENTS 

PART  I:   GENERALLY  ACCEPTED  RESULTS  OF 
SYNOPTIC  STUDY 

Chapter  I:   The  Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
UPON  Mark 

PAGE 

The  Framework  op  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke    ...  3 

Up  to  Luke's  "Great  Omission" 3 

Luke's  "Great  Omission"  and  Beyond 7 

Luke's  "Great  Interpolation":  Its  Content     ....  8 

The  Jerusalem  Narrative 10 

The  Story  of  the  Passion 12 

The  Priority  of  Mark 13 

Luke's  Great  Interpolation :   Its  Non-Use  of  Mark     .      .  16 

Chapter  II:   The  Order  of  Mark's  Gospel  Compared  with 

That  of  Matthew  and  That  of  Luke 

Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke 19 

Table  I :  Showing  Changes  Made  by  Matthew  and  Luke 

in  the  Order  of  Marcan  Material     ......  24 

Deductions  from  the  Table 28 

Chapter  III:   The  Omissions  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the 

Marcan  Narrative 

Omissions  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark 30 

Omissions  Made  by  Both  Matthew  and  Luke        ...  30 

Omissions  Made  by  Matthew  in  the  Marcan  Narrative   .  31 

Omissions  Made  by  Luke  in  the  Marcan  Narrative    .      .  32 

Chapter  IV:    The  Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the 
Narrative  of  Mark 

Changes  OF  Matthew  AND  Luke  in  Mark 37 

The  Baptism  of  Jesus 37 

V  The  Calling  of  the  First  Disciples 38 

Jesus  in  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum 38 

The  Healing  of  Peter's  Mother-in-Law 38 

The  Healing  in  the  Evening 39 

The  Retirement  of  Jesus 39 

The  Calling  of  Peter 40 

The  Healing  of  the  Leper 41 

The  Healing  of  the  Paralytic 41 

The  Calling  of  Levi  (Matthew) 42 

vii 


viii  Contents 

PAGE 

Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark — continued 

The  Question  about  Fasting 42 

The  Walk  Tlii-ough  the  Corn 43 

The  Man  with  the  Withered  Hand 44 

The  Crowd  and  the  Heahngs 44 

The  CalUng  of  the  Twelve 44 

The  Pharisaic  Accusation  and  Jesus'  Defense  ...  45 
The  True   Brotherhood  of  Jesus;    the   Parable  of  the 

Sower;  the  Purpose  of  the  Parables 45 

The  Interpretation  of  the  Parable  of  the  Sower     ...  46 

A  Group  of  Detached  Sayings 47 

The  Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 47 

The  Storm  on  the  Lake 47 

The  Gadarene  Demoniac 48 

The  Daughter  of  Jairus  and  the  Woman  with  the  Issue  of 

Blood 49 

The  Initial  Preaching  in  Nazareth 51 

The  Sending  out  of  the  Disciples 51 

The  Judgment  of  Herod  concerning  Jesus 52 

The  Death  of  the  Baptist 53 

The  Return  of  the  Disciples  and  the  Feeding  of  the  Five 

Thousand 54 

The  Walking  on  the  Sea 55 

The  Return  to  Gennesaret 56 

About  the  Things  That  Defile 56 

The  Canaanitish  Woman 57 

The  Feeding  of  the  Four  Thousand 57 

The  Demand  for  a  Sign 57 

The  Saying  about  Yeast 57 

The  Confession  of  Peter,  and   the  First  Prediction  of 

Sufferings 58 

The  Demands  of  Discipleship 58 

The  Transfiguration 59 

The  Discussion  about  Elijah 59 

The  Healing  of  the  Epileptic  Boy 60 

The  Second  Prediction  of  Sufferings 60 

The  Strife  about  Rank 61 

Minor  Passages 61 

Summary  of  Matthew's  and  Luke's  Treatment  of  the 

Marcan  Narrative 70 

Chapter  V :  Have  We  the  Gospel  of  Mark  in  Its 
Original  Form? 

Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form  ? 72 

Discussion  of  the  Analysis  of  Mark  by  Wendling  and  von 

Soden 74 

Conclusions  of  von  Soden  and  Wendling  Compared     .  83 

Matthew  and  Luke  Used  Our  Mark  as  a  Source  ...  88 
The  Hypothesis  of  a  Primitive  ]\Iark  Superfluous;  Simpler 

Explanations 88 

Some  Remarkable  Verbal  Resemblances 93 


Contents  ix 

Chapter  VI :  Use  of  a  Common  Document  by  Matthew 
AND  Luke 

PAGE 

Use  of  a  Common  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke     .  97 

A  Recent  Attempt  to  Prove  Matthew  a  Source  for  Luke    .     100 


Chapter  VII:  The  Existence  ant)  Content  of  Q 


lOS 
109 
110 
115 
116 
120 


Existence  and  Content  of  Q 

Deductions  from  the  Table 

Table  II :  Material  from  Q  in  Matthew  .      . 

Deductions  from  Table  III 

Table  III :  Material  in  Luke  Taken  from  Q 
The  Necessity  for  a  Further  Extension  of  Q 

PART  II:   ANALYSIS  OF  Q  INTO  QMt  AND  QLk 
Chapter  I:   Analysis  of  Q 

Analysis  of  Q 123 

Q  Originally  an  .\ramaic   Document,   Used  in    Greek 

Translations  by  Matthew  and  Luke 123 

The  Analysis  of  Q  into  QMt  and  QLk 126 

Chapter  II:    Q,  QMt,  and  QLk,  in  the  Double  Tradition 
of  Matthew  and  Luke 

Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke 129 

The  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist 129 

The  Messianic  Proclamation  of  the  Baptist       ....  130 

The  Temptation 130 

"Blessed  Are  the  Poor" 131 

" Blessed  .li-eThev  That  Mourn" 132 

"Blessed  Are  They  That  Hunger" 132 

"  Blessed  Are  The  Persecuted  " 132 

A  Saj^ing  about  Salt 133 

A  Saying  about  Light 133 

A  Saying  about  the  Law 135 

"Agree  with  Thine  Adversary" 135 

About  Non-Resistance  and  Love  of  Enemies    ....  135 

The  Lord's  Prayer 136 

A  Saying  about  Treasures 137 

A  Saying  about  the  Eye 137 

About  Double  Service 138 

About  Care 138 

About  Judging        139 

The  Beam  and  the  Mote 139 

About  Seeking  and  Finding 139 

The  Golden  Rule 140 

The  Narrow  Gate 140 

The  Tree  and  Its  Fruits 141 

Warning  against  Self-Deception         141 

The  Two  Houses 143 


X  Contents 

PAGE 

Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke — continued 

The  Centurion's  Son 143 

"Many  Shall  Come  from  East  and  West" 145 

Two  Men  Would  Follow  Jesus 146 

"The  Harvest  Is  Great" 146 

"The  Laborer  Is  Worthy  of  His  Hire" 146 

"Greet  the  House" 147 

"  More  Tolerable  for  Sodom  " 147 

"Sheep  among  Wolves" 148 

How  to  Act  under  Persecution 148 

The  Disciple  and  His  Teacher 148 

Exhortation  to  Fearless  Confession 149 

Strife  among  Relatives 150 

Conditions  of  Discipleship 150 

"HeThat  Receiveth  You" 151 

The  Question  of  the  Baptist  and  Jesus'  Answer      .      .      .  152 

The  Woe  upon  the  Galilean  Cities 152 

"I  Thank  Thee,  O  Father" 152 

Jesus'  Defense  against  the  Pharisees 153 

"HeThat  Is  Not  with  Me" 153 

Jonah  and  the  Ninevites 153 

A  Speech  about  Backsliding 154 

"Blessed  Are  the  Eyes  That  See" 154 

The  Parable  of  the  Yeast 154 

The  Blind  Leading  the  Blind  " 155 

A  Saying  about  Faith 155 

A  Saying  about  Offenses 156 

The  Stray  Sheep 156 

About  Forgiveness 157 

Rewards  for  Discipleship 157 

Against  the  Pharisees 157 

"Whoso  Humbles  Himself" 158 

Against  the  Pharisees 158 

A  Woe  upon  the  Scribes 159 

"I  Send  unto  You  Prophets" 160 

The  Lament  over  Jerusalem 161 

The  Day  of  the  Son  of  Man 161 

The  Body  and  the  Eagles 161 

The  Days  of  Noah 161 

The  One  Taken,  the  Other  Left 162 

The  Watching  Servant 162 

The  True  and  False  Servants 162 

Results  of  the  Preceding  Investigation 162 

Chapter  III:    Q  in  the  Single  Tradition  of 

Matthew  (QMt) 

Q  IN  THE  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew 166 

Two  Beatitudes 167 

Four  More  Beatitudes 167 

"Ye  Are  the  Light  of  the  World" 169 

"Let  Your  Light  Shine" 169 

Various  Sayings  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount   .      .      .  170 

A  Saying  about  Offenses 171 


Contents  xi 

PAGE 

Q  IN  THE  Single  TR.'iDiTioN  of  Matthew — continued 

The  Commandment  about  Divorce 171 

About  Oaths l~"-2 

The  Second  Mile 172 

Another  Old  Testament  Commandment 173 

About  Alms-Giving 173 

About  Prayer 174 

About  Fasting 175 

Pearls  before  Swine 175 

The  False  Prophets 176 

A  Saying  about  Trees 177 

"By  Their  Fruits" 177 

An  Oft-Repeated  Formula 177 

The  Conclusion  of  the  Story  of  the  Centurion's  Servant  178 

"I  Will  Have  Mercy  and  Not  Sacrifice" 179 

The  Healing  of  Two  Blind  Men 179 

The  Healing  of  a  Dumb  Man ISO 

Instructions  to  the  Disciples 180 

Further  Instructions  to  the  Disciples 180 

A  Saying  about  Elijah 181 

"He  That  Hath  Ears,  Let  Him  Hear"        .....  182 
The  Occasion  of  Pronouncing  Woes  upon  the  Galilean 

Cities _ 182 

Reason  Assigned  for  the  Pronunciation  of  the  Woes   .      .  182 

"Come  unto  Me" 183 

A  Saying  about  the  Law 184 

An  Old  Testament  Quotation 184 

"Generation  of  Vipers" 184 

A  Saying  about  the  Judgment 185 

An  Interpretation  of  the  Sign  of  Jonah 185 

The  Weed  in  the  Field 185 

The  Parables  of  the  Treasure,  the  Pearl,  the  Fish-Net, 

and  the  Scribe  Instructed  in  the  Kingdom     .      .      .  186 

Peter  Walking  on  the  Water 187 

"To  the  Lost  Sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel"     .      .      .      .187 

A  Summary  of  Jesus'  Healing  Work 188 

The  Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 189 

An  Insertion  in  the  Story  of  the  Transfiguration   .  189 

"Whosoever  Humbles  Himself  as  This  Little  Child"       .  189 

The  Unforgiving  Servant 190 

About  Eunuchs 190 

The  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard 190 

The  Two  Sons 191 

The  Wedding  Feast 191 

Against  the  Pharisees 191 

The  Parables  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  the  Talents,  the  Judgment  191 

"  Twelve  Legions  of  Angels  " 192 

Chapter  IV:    Q  in  the  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  (QLk) 

Q  in  the  Single  Tradition  of  Luke 193 

The  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist 193 

The  Initial  Preaching  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth       ....  194 

\,The  Call  of  Peter 194 


xii  Contents 

PAGE 

Q  IN  THE  Single  Tradition  of  Luke — continued 

The  Woes 194 

The  Reception  of  John's  Preaching 195 

The  Sinner  in  Simon's  House 195 

A  Would-Be  Follower  of  Jesus 196 

The  Return  of  the  Seventy 196 

The  Great  Commandment 197 

The  Good  Samaritan 197 

Mary  and  Martha 197 

The  Parable  of  the  Friend  on  a  Journey 198 

The  Mother  of  Jesus  Praised 198 

"If  Thine  Whole  Body  Is  Light" 198 

The  Parable  of  the  Foolish  Rich  Man    .      .      .      .      .      .198 

The  Exhortation  to  Watchfulness 198 

"To  Whom  Much  Is  Given" 199 

"  I  Came  to  Cast  Fire  upon  the  Earth  " 199 

The  Galileans  Slain  by  Herod 199 

The  Parable  of  the  Fig-Tree 200 

"Go  Tell  That  Fox" 200 

The  Healing  of  the  Dropsical  Man 201 

About  Taking  the  Less  Honorable  Seats  at  the  Table      .  201 

Whom  to  Invite  to  a  Feast 202 

The  Parable  of  the  Dinner  and  the  Invited  Guests  202 

Conditions  of  Discipleship 203 

The  Lost  Sheep 203 

The  Lost  Coin  and  the  Prodigal  Son 203 

The  Unjust  Steward 203 

A  Criticism  of  the  Pharisees 204 

The  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus 205 

"Unprofitable  Servants"   and  the   Healing  of   the  Ten 

Lepers 205 

About  the  Coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God       ....  205 

Matter  Peculiar  to  Matthew  or  to  Luke 206 

Matter  Peculiar  to  Luke 210 

Did  Luke's  Great  Interpolation  Originally  Exist  as  a 

Separate  Documentary  Source  ? 214 

Other  Possible  Sources  for  Material  Peculiar  to  Luke  217 
Conclusions  Regarding  Q  Material  in  the  Single  Tradi- 

ditions  of  Matthew  and  Luke 218 

Chapter  V:    Review  of  Q  Material  in  Matthew,  Luke, 
AND  Mark 

Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark        ....  221 

Considerations  Favoring  Analysis  of  Q  into  QMt  and  QLk  221 

Table  IV:  Contents  of  Q  Material  in  Matthew      ...  222 

Table  V:  Contents  of  Q  Material  in  Luke 224 

Passages  Closely   Similar,   Yet   With   Divergences  Too 
Great  to  Be  Accounted  for  upon  the  Hypothesis  of 

an  Undifferentiated  Q 226 

With  Matthew's  Q  before  Him,  Luke  Would  Not  Have 

Omitted  So  Much  of  It 227 

The  "Secondary  Traits"  Are  in  QMt  and  QLk,  Not  in  Q  230 


Contents  xiii 


Chapter  VI:   Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q? 

Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q  ? 234 

What  Material  Did  Mark  Take  from  Q  ? 23b 

The  Messianic  Announcement  of  the  Baptist   ....  237 

The  Baptism  of  Jesus 237 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus 238 

The  Beelzebul  Controversy 238 

Five  Detached  Sayings 239 

The  Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 240 

The  Sending  Out  of  the  Twelve 241 

A  Sign  Refused "-^| 

"Whosoever  Will  Follow  Me" 241 

"Whosoever  Is  Ashamed  of  Me" 242 

About  Offenses 242 

About  Salt 243 

About  Divorce 243 

The  First  Who  Shall  Be  Last 243 

True  Greatness 244 

About  Faith 244 

Against  the  Pharisees ^4:4 

The  Holy  Spirit  Speaking  in  the  Disciples 244 

Other  Marcan  Passages  Considered,  But  Rejected      .      .  244 
Table  VI:  Contents  of  Q  Material  in  Mark      ....  246 
Do  the  Vocabulary  and  Style  of  Mark  and  Q,  Respec- 
tively, Throw  Any  Light  upon  Their  Literary  Rela- 
tionship?    2-;6 

Conclusions  as  to  Mark's  Dependence  upon  Q       .      .      .  248 

Chapter  VII:   The  Original  Order  of  Q 

Original  Order  of  Q 249 

Table  VII 2o0 

Table  VIII 250 

Table  IX 251 

Table  X 252 

Chapter  VIII:   Summary  and  Conclusions 


PART  I 
ACCEPTED  RESULTS  OF  SYNOPTIC  STUDY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    DEPENDENCE   OF    MATTHEW   AND   LUKE   UPON 

MARK 

The  one  universally  accepted  result  of  modern  study  of 
the  synoptic  problem  is  the  dependence  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  upon  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 

Tho  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  demonstrate  this  use  of 
Mark  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  relation  among  the  three 
Gospels  is  not  to  be  dismissed  with  a  simple  statement  of 
this  dependence.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  is  the  one  docu- 
ment possessed  by  us  in  substantially  the  same  form  in 
which  it  was  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  A  considera- 
tion of  how  Matthew  and  Luke  treated  the  sources  which 
we  no  longer  have  before  us  will  be  influenced  by  the  treat- 
ment which  they  accorded  to  this  one  source  which  we 
have.  Our  first  work,  therefore,  is  to  observe,  with  some 
thoroness,  the  manner  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  use 
the  Gospel  of  Mark.  If  any  proof  is  still  required  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  did  employ  this  Gospel,  it  will  appear 
in  the  discussion. 

FRAMEWORK  OF  MARK's  GOSPEL  IN  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE — 

UP  TO  Luke's  "great  omission" 

Matthew  and  Luke  begin  with  introductory  matter  of 
their  own,  occupying  the  first  two  chapters  of  their  Gos- 
pels. With  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist  their  nar- 
rative begins  to  coincide  with  that  of  Mark.  Luke  in  a 
manner  characteristic  of  his  Gospel  attempts  to  supply 
historical  details.     Mark  (i,  6)  gives  a  fuller  description  of 

3 


4  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  personal  habits  and  appearance  of  the  Baptist;  the 
others  omit  this,  and  pass  to  a  description  of  his  preaching 
(Mt  iii,  7-10;  Lk  iii,  7-9).  Luke  adds  a  brief  section  (iii, 
10-14)  on  this  subject  derived  from  some  source  of  his 
own. 

After  these  insertions  of  non-Marcan  material,  Matthew 
and  Luke  come  back  to  the  narrative  of  Mark,  and  recount 
(Mk  i,  7-8;  Mt  iii,  11-12;  Lk  iii,  15-18)  the  messianic  pre- 
diction of  the  Baptist,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  (Mk  i,  9-11; 
Mt  iii,  13-17;  Lk  iii,  21-22),  the  temptation  (Mk  i,  12-13; 
Mt  iv,  1-11;  Lk  iv,  1-13),  and  the  initial  appearance  of 
Jesus  in  Galilee  (Mk  i,  14-15;  Mt  iv,  12-17;  Lk  iv,  14- 
15).  Between  the  messianic  preaching  of  the  Baptist  and 
the  baptism  of  Jesus,  Luke  has  inserted  a  notice  of  the 
arrest  and  imprisonment  of  John,  and  between  the  baptism 
and  the  temptation,  his  table  of  the  ancestors  of  Jesus.^ 
The  large  amount  of  closely  parallel  matter  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  especially  in  their  account  of  the  Baptist's 
preaching  and  thejr  narrative  of  the  temptation,  shows 
their  use  of  a  common  non-Marcan  source;  but  the  order 
of  their  narrative,  as  well  as  its  wording,  shows  their  use 
of  Mark  also.  To  his  account  of  the  initial  appearance 
of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  Luke  adds  (iv,  16-30)  an  account  of 
Jesus'  first  preaching  in  Nazareth. 

Matthew  proceeds  to  tell  with  Mark  (Mt  iv,  18-22; 
Mk  i,  16-20)  of  the  calling  of  the  first  disciples.  Luke 
postpones  this,  having  a  more  detailed  and  interesting  ac- 
count of  the  call  of  Peter  which  he  will  introduce  later 
(Lk  V,  1-11).  Mark  (i,  21-28)  then  tells  of  Jesus'  preaching 
in  a  synagogue  at  Capernaum.  This  Matthew  omits,  but 
Luke  (iv,  31-37)  gives  the  story  as  Mark  has  it.     Matthew 

'  Cf.  Sanders,  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  XXXII,  184  fif.,  for  evidence 
that  this  did  not  stand  in  the  original  text  of  Luke. 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark    5 

here  inserts  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  heahng  of 
the  nobleman's  daughter  (Mt  v,  1 — -viii,  13);  he  then 
comes  back  to  the  narrative  of  Mark,  and  with  Luke  tells 
(Mk  i,  29-31 ;  Mt  viii,  14-15;  Lk  iv,  38-39)  of  the  healing 
of  Peter's  mother-in-law.  The  three  evangelists  then  re- 
late together  (Mk  i,  32-34;  Mt  viii,  16-17;  Lk  iv,  40-41), 
the  story  of  the  healings  at  evening.  Luke  and  Mark  add 
the  story  of  Jesus'  retirement  into  a  desert  place  (Mk  i, 
35-38;  Lk  iv,  42-43),  which  Matthew  omits.  Mark  and 
Luke  then  add  a  brief  statement  of  a  preaching  tour  thru 
Galilee  (Mk  i,  39;  Lk  iv,  44);  Matthew  has  already  uti- 
lized this  statement,  somewhat  enlarged,  as  introductory  to 
his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Mt  iv,  23-25).  Luke  inserts 
(Lk  v,  1-11)  his  account  of  the  caUing  of  Peter,  postponed 
from  its  earlier  position  in  Mark.  The  three  then  tell 
together  the  story  of  the  healing  of  the  leper  and  the  para- 
lytic, the  call  of  Levi  (called  Matthew  in  Matthew),  and 
the  discussion  about  fasting  (Mk  i,  40 — ii,  22;  Mt  viii, 
1-4;  ix,  1-17;  Lk  v,  12-39).  Matthew  (ix,  35— x,  16) 
inserts  his  account  of  the  sending  out  of  the  twelve,  which 
Mark  and  Luke  give  later.  After  this  he  comes  back  into 
agreement  with  the  other  two,  and  all  three  relate  the  inci- 
dent of  Jesus'  walking  thru  the  corn  on  the  Sabbath  (Mk 
ii,  23-28;  Mt  xii,  1-8;  Lk  vi,  1-5),  the  healing  of  the 
withered  hand  (Mk  iii,  1-6;  Mt  xii,  9-14;  Lk  vi,  6-11), 
and  the  healings  in  the  crowd  (Mk  iii,  7-12;  Mt  xii,  15- 
21;  Lk  vi,  17-19). 

At  this  point  Luke  has  transposed  two  brief  sections  of 
Mark,  because,  it  is  evident,  by  so  doing  he  secures  a 
better  introduction  to  his  Sermon  on  the  Level  Place, 
which  he  now  (Lk  vi,  20-49)  proceeds  to  give.  By  plac- 
ing the  account  of  the  calling  of  the  twelve  (Mk  iii,  13-19; 
Lk  vi,  12-16)  just  before  the  account  of  the  gathering  of 


6  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  throng  (Mk  iii,  7-12;  Lk  vi,  17-19)  he  secures  his 
audience  for  his  Sermon  on  the  Plain ;  if  the  narrative  had 
been  given  in  reverse  order,  as  by  Mark,  the  sermon  might 
appear  to  have  been  addressed  to  the  twelve  alone.  After 
his  Sermon  on  the  Plain  (Lk  vi,  20-49)  Luke  adds  the  story 
of  the  widow's  son,  the  anointing  in  Simon's  house,  and  the 
ministering  women  (vii,  11-17,  36-50;  viii,  1-3),  not 
found  in  either  Mark  or  Matthew,  after  which  the  three 
take  up  the  same  story  again  in  the  accusation  of  the 
scribes  and  the  speech  about  Beelzebub,  tho  Luke's  order 
is  here  not  that  of  the  other  two  (Mk  iii,  20-30;  Mt  xii, 
22-37;  Lkxi,  14-23).  After  the  insertion  of  non-Marcan 
material  b)  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  both  return  to 
Mark's  narrative  in  the  story  of  the  family  of  Jesus 
who  had  come  to  take  him  home  (Mk  iii,  31-35;  Mt  xii, 
46-50;  Lk  viii,  19-21),  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  the 
speech  about  the  purpose  of  the  parables,  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  and  the  group  of  detached 
sayings  (Mk  iv,  1-25;  Mt  xiii,  1-23;  Lk  viii,  4-18); 
Matthew,  however,  omits  three  out  of  the  four  sayings  at 
this  point,  because  he  has  already  incorporated  them  in  his 
Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Then  follows  in  Mark  alone  (Mk  iv,  26-29)  the  parable 
of  the  Seed  that  grew  of  itself,  the  only  section  of  Marcan 
material  thus  far  omitted  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Then  the  parable  of  the  Seed-Corn,  which  Luke  omits  but 
Matthew  gives  (Mk  iv,  30-32;  Mt  xiii,  31-32). i  Then 
come  the  storm  on  the  lake,  the  story  of  the  Gadarene 
demoniac,  the  healing  of  Jairus'  daughter,  with  the  inter- 
polation of  the  story  of  the  woman  with  the  hemorrhage 

>  This  statement  may  be  questioned,  as  Lli  xiii,  18-19  may  be  considered 
parallel  to  Mlc  iv,  30-32.  At  all  events  Matthew  has  the  passage  with 
Mark.  The  matter  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  parable  apparently 
stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q. 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark    7 

(Mk  iv,  35— V,  43;  Mt  viii,  23-34;  ix,  18-26;  Lk  viii,  22- 
56),  all  in  the  same  order.  Then  follows  the  rejection  in 
Nazareth  (Mk  vi,  1-6;  Mt  xiii,  53-58);  Matthew  follows 
Mark  in  it,  but  Luke  omits  it  because  he  has  related  a 
similar  incident  in  his  fourth  chapter.  Luke  then  follows 
Mark  in  relating  the  incident  of  the  sending  out  of  the 
twelve  (Mk  vi,  6-13;  Lk  ix,  1-6);  Matthew  has  given  it 
in  an  earher  location.  The  judgment  of  Herod  concern- 
ing Jesus  is  then  given  by  all  three  (Mk  vi,  14-16;  Mt  xiv, 
1-2;  Lk  ix,  7-9).  Matthew  gives  with  Mark  (Mk  vi,  17- 
29;  Mt  xiv,  3-12)  the  story  of  the  Baptist's  death;  Luke 
omits  it,  having  concluded  his  story  of  John  in  connection 
with  his  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  (Lk  iii,  19-20). 
Then  follow  in  all  three  the  return  of  the  disciples  and  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (Mk  vi,  30-44;  Mt  xiv,  13-21 ; 
Lk  ix,  10-17) .  Thus  far,  several  items  of  Mark's  narrative 
have  been  omitted  now  by  Matthew  and  now  by  Luke,  but 
only  one  fragment,  the  parable  of  the  Seed  Growing  of 
Itself  (Mk  iv,  26-29),  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Luke's  "great  omission,"  and  beyond 

With  Mk  vi,  45,  begins  a  section  extending  to  Mk  viii, 
26,  in  which  Matthew  follows  Mark  closely,  both  in  word- 
ing and  in  order  (Mt  xiv, 22 — xvi,  12), except  that  Matthew 
omits  Mark's  healing  of  the  deaf  stammerer  (Mk  vii,  31- 
37),  inserts  (Mt  xv,  29-31)  a  summary  of  the  healing  nar- 
ratives, and  omits  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  (Mk  viii, 
22-26).  Luke  omits  the  entire  section.  Luke  picks  up 
the  thread  of  Mark's  narrative  again  at  Mk  viii,  27,  and 
he  and  Matthew  follow  it  thru  the  confession  of  Peter  (Mk 
viii,  27-33;  Mt  xvi,  13-23;  Lk  ix,  18-22),  the  prediction 
of  sufferings  for  the  disciples  (Mk  viii,  34 — ix,  1 ;  Mt  xvi, 
24-28;  Lk  ix,  23-27),  and  the  transfiguration  (Mk  ix,  2-8; 


8  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Mt  xvii,  1-8;  Lk  ix,  28-36).  Luke  omits  the  question  of 
the  scribes  concerning  EUas,  but  Matthew  follows  Mark 
init  (Mkix,  9-13;  Mt  xvii,  9-13).  After  the  omission  of 
these  five  Marcan  verses  Luke  again  continues  Mark's 
narrative,  as  does  Matthew,  and  the  three  relate  together 
the  healing  of  the  epileptic  boy  (Mk  ix,  14-29;  Mt  xvii, 
14-21;  Lk  ix,  37^3a),  and  the  second  prediction  of  suffer- 
ings (Mk  ix,  30-32;    Mt  xvii,  22-23;    Lk  ix,  436-45). 

Matthew  inserts  from  another  source  the  passage  about 
the  temple-tax  (Mt  xvii,  24-27),  and  the  three  continue 
together  in  the  passage  concerning  the  strife  about  pre- 
cedence (Mk  ix,  33-37;  Mt  xviii,  1-5;  Lk  ix,  46-48). 
Matthew  then  drops  out  for  a  few  verses,  but  Luke  follows 
Mark  in  the  story  of  the  unknown  exorcist  (Mk  ix,  38-41 ; 
Lk  ix,  49-50).  Luke  omits  Mark's  saying  about  offenses, 
but  Matthew  follows  Mark  in  it  (Mk  ix,  42^8;  Mt  xviii, 
6-9) .  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  then  forsake  Mark  for  the 
moment,  since  they  have  both  given  his  saying  about  salt 
(Mk  ix,  49-50)  in  other  connections,  their  treatment  of 
Mark  here  being  evidently  influenced  by  their  use  of 
another  source.^  Matthew  then  inserts  a  few  sections 
peculiar  to  his  Gospel  (Mt  xviii,  10-35),  a  few  verses  of 
which  (Mt  xviii,  10-14;  Lk  xv,  3-7;  Mt  xviii,  15;  Lk  xvii, 
3;  Mt  xviii,  21-22;  Lk  xvii,  4)  are  somewhat  loosely 
paralleled  in  Luke. 

Luke's  "great  interpolation":  its  content 

Beginning  with  the  51st  verse  of  his  9th  chapter,  and 
extending  thru  the  14th  verse  of  his  18th  chapter,  occurs 
Luke's  "Great  Interpolation,"  his  account  of  the  journey 
thru  Samaria.     Here  occur  in  Luke  many  of  Jesus'  sayings 

1  Tho  Lk  xiv,  34a  is  apparently  taken  from  Mk  ix,  50o,  as  against 
Mt  V.  13a. 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark    9 

which  Matthew  has  combined  into  his  "Sermon  on  the 
Mount";  notably  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  speech  about 
backsHding,  and  the  saying  "Ask  and  ye  shall  receive." 
Here  also  is  much  material  peculiar  to  Luke;  notably 
Jesus'  visit  to  the  home  of  Mary  and  Martha,  the  blessing 
of  the  woman  upon  the  mother  of  Jesus,  the  sending  out 
and  return  of  the  seventy  disciples,  the  healing  of  the  ten 
lepers,  and  the  parables  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  Friend 
Asking  for  Bread,  the  Foohsh  Rich  Man,  the  Lost  Sheep, 
the  Lost  Coin,  the  Prodigal  Son,  Dives  and  Lazarus,  the 
Unjust  Judge,  and  the  Publican  and  Pharisee  in  the 
Temple. 

Since  the  purpose  here  is  merely  to  indicate  the  relation 
of  the  framework  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  to 
that  of  Mark,  the  full  content  of  this  great  interpolation 
of  Luke's  does  not  need  to  be  presented.  Enough  has  been 
given  to  show  how  long  and  important  a  section  it  is. 
Thruout  it  Luke  appears  to  forsake  Mark,  tho  there  seem 
to  be  evidences  that  for  some  of  the  material  contained  in 
this  section  and  also  to  be  found  in  Mark,  Mark  and  Luke 
have  been  drawing  upon  a  common  source. ^ 

After  forsaking  Mark  for  so  long,  Luke  comes  back  to 
him,  and  to  Matthew  (who  has  not  made  this  deviation  at 
the  same  place),  in  the  blessing  of  the  children  (Mk  x,  13- 
16;  Mt  xix,  13-15;  Lk  xviii,  15-17),  the  danger  of  riches 
(Mk  x,  17-31;  Mt  xix,  16-30;  Lk  xviii,  18-30),  and  the 
third  prediction  of  sufferings  (Mk  x,  32-34;  Mt  xx,  17-19; 
Lk  xviii,  31-34).  Matthew  has  meantime  inserted  (Mt 
XX,  1-16)  his  parable  of  the  Workers  in  the  Vineyard,  but 
has  not  allowed  this  insertion  to  influence  his  adherence 
to  the  Marcan  order.     Luke  then  drops  out  of  the  triple 

1  For  discussion  of  Luke's  non-use  of  Mark  tliruout  the  Great  Inter- 
polation, see  pp.  16-18;  for  an  elaborate  analysis  of  the  sources  of  the 
section,  see  Hawkins,  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  29-59. 


10  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

tradition  in  the  passage  concerning  the  request  of  James 
and  John  for  chief  seats  in  the  kingdom,  but  Matthew 
continues  to  follow  Mark  (Mk  x,  35-45;  Mt  xx,  20-28). 
After  this  brief  omission  of  Luke's,  the  three  come  together 
again  in  the  story  of  the  healing  of  Bartimaeus  (Mk  x,  46- 
52;  Mt  XX,  29-34;  Lk,  xviii,  35-43).  Luke  inserts  his 
story  of  Zaccheus,  unknown  to  the  other  evangelists  (Lk 
xix,  1-10),  and  his  parable  of  the  Talents  (Lk  xix,  11-27), 
more  or  less  closely  parallel  to  Matthew's  parable  (Mt  xxv, 
14-30). 

the    JERUSALEM    NARRATIVE 

In  their  account  of  the  happenings  in  Jerusalem,  the 
three  evangelists  start  out  together  in  the  story  of  the 
triumphal  entry  (Mk  xi,  1-11;  Mt  xxi,  1-11;  Lk  xix,  28- 
38).  Matthew  and  Luke  then  insert  some  material  un- 
known to  Mark  (Mt  xxi,  14-17;  Lk  xix,  39-44).  Matthew 
follows  Mark  in  the  story  of  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree 
(Mk  xi,  12-14;  Mt  xxi,  18-19);  Luke  omits  this,  perhaps 
considering  it  a  variant  of  the  parable  of  the  Barren  Fig 
Tree  given  later  by  all  three.  The  three  continue  together 
in  the  account  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  (Mk  xi,  15-18; 
Mt  xxi,  12-13;  Lk  xix,  45-48),  and  Matthew  gives  with 
Mark  the  speech  of  Jesus  concerning  the  withered  fig  tree 
(Mk  xi,  20-26;  Mt  xxi,  20-22) ;  Luke,  having  omitted  the 
cursing  of  the  fig  tree,  omits  also  this  speech  concerning  it. 

The  three  then  give  together  the  Pharisees'  question 
about  Jesus'  authority  for  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  (Mk 
xi,  27-33;  Mt  xxi,  23-27;  Lk  xx,  1-8).  Matthew  adds  his 
parable  of  the  Dissimilar  Sons  (Mt  xxi,  28-32),  and  the 
three  relate  together  the  parable  of  the  Evil  Husbandmen 
(Mk  xii,  1-12;  Mt  xxi,  33-46;  Lk  xx,  9-19).  Matthew 
next  gives  the  parable  of  the  Wedding  Feast  (Mt  xxii,  1- 
14)  which  Luke  has  given  earlier,  in  his  Great  Interpola- 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark     U 

tion  (Lk  xiv,  16-24).  Matthew  and  Luke  follow  Mark 
again  in  the  question  about  the  tribute  money  (Mk  xii,  13- 
17;  Mt  xxii,  15-22;  Lk  xx,  20-26)  and  the  question  of  the 
Sadducees  about  marriage  (Mk  xii,  18-27;  Mt  xxii,  23-33; 
Lk  XX,  27-40) .  Matthew  continues  to  follow  Mark  in  the 
question  about  the  great  commandment  (Mk  xii,  28-34; 
Mt  xxii,  34-40) ;  Luke  has  included  this  also  in  his  Great 
Interpolation  (Lk  x,  25-28) ;  both  Matthew  and  Luke  omit 
the  complimentary  remarks  of  the  scribe  to  Jesus  given  by 
Mark  (Mk  xii,  32-34).  This  omission  does  not  hinder 
their  following  Mark  in  his  next  sections,  the  question  of 
David's  son,  and  the  speech  against  the  Pharisees  (Mk  xii, 
35-37;  Mt  xxii,  41-46;  Lk  xx,  41-44,  and  Mk  xii,  38-40; 
Mt  xxiii,  1-36;  Lk  xx,  45^7).  Matthew's  largely  ex- 
panded form  of  the  latter  of  these  two  sections  shows  him 
to  be  here  combining  some  other  source  with  Mark. 

Luke's  discourse  against  the  Pharisees  recorded  in  this 
place  agrees  closely  with  Mark's,  but  he  has  given  in  his 
eleventh  chapter  much  of  the  non-Marcan  material  which 
Matthew  gives  in  this  place  (Lk  xi,  39-50).  Matthew 
then  inserts  the  lament  over  Jerusalem  (Mt  xxiii,  37-39) 
which  Luke  has  given  at  an  earlier  and  less  appropriate 
point  (Lk  xiii,  34-35).  Matthew  deserts,  but  Luke  fol- 
lows, Mark  in  the  story  of  the  widow's  mite  (Mk  xii,  41-44; 
Lk  xxi,  1-4).  All  three  continue  together  in  the  predic- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  (Mk  xiii,  1-4;  Mt 
xxiv,  1-3;  Lk  xxi,  5-7),  and  in  the  signs  of  the  parousia 
(Mk  xiii,  5-9;  Mt  xxiv,  4-8;  Lk  xxi,  8-11).  Thruout  the 
remainder  of  the  "Little  Apocalypse"  Matthew  has  an  oc- 
casional expansion  of  Marcan  material,  and  Luke  makes  an 
occasional  omission,  but  it  is  obvious  that  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  here,  in  the  main,  following  Mark  closely  (Mk 
xiii;  Mtxxiv;  Lkxxi).     There  follow  in  Matthew  several 


12  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

sections  not  duplicated  in  Mark,  as  the  saying  about  the 
days  of  Noah  (Mt  xxiv,  37^1),  the  parables  of  the  Watch- 
ing Servant  (Mt  xxiv,  42-44) ,  the  True  and  False  Servant 
(Mt  xxiv,  45-51),  the  Wise  Virgins  (Mt  xxv,  1-13),  the 
Talents  (Mt  xxv,  14-30),  and  the  parable  of  the  Judgment 
(Mt  xxv,  31-46).  Luke  has  given  to  the  "Little  Apoca- 
lypse" an  ending  of  his  own  (Lk  xxi,  34-36);  the  material 
which  Matthew  has  inserted  continuously  in  his  xxiv,  37 — 
xxv,  30,  Luke  has  scattered  over  his  seventeenth,  twelfth, 
and  nineteenth  chapters;  the  Matthean  parable  of  the 
Judgment  is  duplicated  in  neither  Mark  nor  Luke.  Luke 
adds  a  summary  of  the  activity  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  (Lk 
xxi,  37-38). 

THE    STORY    OF    THE    PASSION 

Here  the  three  evangelists  start  out  together  with  the 
machinations  of  the  rulers  (Mk  xiv,  1-2;  Mt  xxvi,  1-5; 
Lk  xxii,  1-2).  Luke  drops  out  the  account  of  the  anoint- 
ing in  Bethany,  which  Mark  and  Matthew  relate  (Mk  xiv, 
3-9;  Mt  xxvi,  6-13),  Luke  having  related  a  similar  event 
in  an  earlier  chapter  (Lk  vii,  36-50) .  The  three  then  go  on 
together  in  the  story  of  the  bargain  of  Judas  with  the 
priests  (Mk  xiv,  10-11;  Mt  xxvi,  14-16;  Lk  xxii,  3-6), 
and  the  account  of  the  preparation  for  the  Passover  (Mk 
xiv,  12-17;  Mt  xxvi,  17-20;  Lk  xxii,  7-14).  Luke  then 
brings  forward  Mark's  story  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  apparently  feeling  that  it  fits  better  here  than  as 
given  by  Mark;  except  for  the  transposition  of  Luke's 
xxii,  21-23  (  =  Mk  xiv,  18-21;  Mt  xxvi,  21-25),  the  three 
agree  in  their  account  of  the  prediction  of  the  betrayal  and 
the  institution  of  the  Supper.  Luke  then  adds  a  section 
of  seven  verses  (Lk  xxii,  24-30)  on  the  strife  about  rank  in 
the  coming  kingdom,  which  Mark  and  Matthew  have 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark     13 

given  earlier  (Mk  x,  42-45;  Mt  xx,  25-28).  After  this 
interruption  of  the  common  order  the  three  go  on  with  the 
prediction  of  the  denial  by  Peter  (Mk  xiv,  26-31 ;  Mt  xxvi, 
30-35;  Lk  xxii,  31-34).  Then  come,  tho  interrupted  by 
here  and  there  a  slight  addition  peculiar  to  Matthew  or 
Luke,  and  with  transpositions  of  verses  or  small  sections 
more  frequent  than  in  other  parts  of  the  Gospels,  the  scene 
in  Gethsemane,  the  arrest,  trial,  execution,  and  burial  of 
Jesus,  and  the  story  of  the  empty  grave  (Mk  xiv,  32 — xvi, 
8;  Mt  xxvi,  36 — xxviii,  10;  Lk  xxii,  39 — xxiv,  11);  thus 
bringing  us  down  to  the  mutilated  end  of  Mark's  Gospel. 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  thus  taken,  between  them, 
with  trifling  exceptions,  the  entire  Gospel  of  Mark.  The 
historical  framework  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  goes  back  to 
Mark. 

THE    PRIORITY    OF   MARK 

We  add  here  a  brief  statement  of  the  theory  that 
Mark's  Gospel  is  an  abstract  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Tho  this  theory  is  no  longer  defended,  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  summarize  the  more  general  con- 
siderations which  have  led  to  its  abandonment. 

1.  It  is  impossible,  upon  this  theory,  to  account  for 
the  omission  by  Mark  of  so  much  of  the  material  that 
stood  before  him  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  has  omitted 
most  of  the  parables  and  sayings.  He  has  added  no 
narrative.  He  has  therefore  made  an  abstract  in  which 
much  is  omitted,  nothing  is  added,  and  no  improvement 
is  introduced.  No  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  making 
of  such  a  Gospel  by  abstracting  from  the  fuller  and  better 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  abstract  not  only 
adds  nothing  of  its  own,  but  fails  to  preserve  the  distinctive 
character  of  either  of  its  exemplars. 


14  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

2.  If  Mark  had  wished  to  make  such  an  abstract,  it 
is  impossible  to  explain  why  in  practically  every  instance 
he  follows,  as  between  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  longer 
narrative,  while  his  own  narrative  is  longer  than  either 
of  those  he  copied.  In  the  story  of  the  healing  of  the 
leper,  for  example,  Matthew  (viii,  1-4)  has  62  words,  Luke 
(v,  12-16,  without  his  introduction)  has  87,  and  Mark 
(i,  40-45)  has  97.  In  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (Mk 
ii,  1-12;  Mt  ix,  1-8;  Lk  v,  17-26)  Matthew  has  125 
words,  Luke  172,  and  Mark  190.  In  the  calling  of  Levi 
(Matthew,  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew)  Matthew  has  92 
words,  Luke  93,  and  Mark  110  (Mk  ii,  13-17;  Mt  ix, 
9-13;  Lk  V,  27-32).  In  the  parable  of  the  Sower  (Mk 
iv,  1-9;  Mt  xiii,  1-9;  Lk  viii,  4-8)  Matthew  has  134 
words,  Luke  90,  and  Mark  151.  In  the  interpretation 
of  that  parable  (Mk  iv,  13-20;  Mt  xiii,  18-23;  Lk  viii, 
11-15)  Matthew  has  128  words,  Luke  109,  and  Mark 
147.  Many  more  such  instances  might  be  given.  In 
every  case  the  additional  words  of  Mark  contain  no 
substantial  addition  to  the  narrative.  They  are  mere 
redundancies,  which  Matthew  and  Luke,  each  in  his 
own  way,  have  eliminated. 

3.  Mark  contains  a  large  number  of  otherwise  unknown 
or  unliterary  words  and  phrases.  For  example,  axi-^oiJLe- 
povs,  i,  10;  eu  iruevfxaTL  aKadapTO),  i,  23;  Kpa^arros,  ii,  4, 
and  in  five  other  places;  iinpaivTeL,  ii,  21;  BvyaTpiov,  v,  23; 
vii,  25;  eo-xaroos  exet,  v,  23;  aireKovXaTup,  vi,  27;  avfx- 
TTOcna  (xvixirbaia,  vi,  39;  eialv  rtj^es  oj5e  rdv  idTrfKOTOiv,  ix,  1; 
els  Kara  els,  xiv,  19;  e/cTrepiao-cos,  xiv,  31.  Such  expres- 
sions might  easily  have  been  replaced  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  with  the  better  expressions  which  they  use  instead 
of  these;  they  could  hardly  have  been  substituted  by 
Mark  for  those  better  expressions. 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark     15 

4.  Mark  contains  many  broken  or  incomplete  con- 
structions; asiniii,  16  +  ;  iv,  31  +  ;  v,  23;  vi,  8+;  xi,  32; 
xii,  38-40;  xiii,  11,  14,  16,  19;  xiv,  49.  Such  construc- 
tions would  be  easily  corrected  by  Matthew  and  Luke; 
they  would  not  easily  be  inserted  into  the  narratives  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  by  Mark. 

5.  Mark  has  many  double  or  redundant  expressions, 
of  which  Matthew  has  taken  a  part,  Luke  sometimes  the 
same  part,  sometimes  another.  Such  instances  may  be 
found  in  Mark's  Gospel  at  ii,  20,  25;  iv,  39;  xi,  2;  xii, 
14;  the  corresponding  passages  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
will  show  their  treatment  of  these  redundancies.^ 

6.  Mark  uses  uniformly  /cat,  where  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  sometimes  Kal  and  sometimes  de.  Mark's 
use  shows  him  to  be  nearer  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic.  No 
explanation  can  be  given  for  his  substitution  of  this  monot- 
onous conjunction  in  the  place  of  the  two  conjunctions 
used  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  variation  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  of  Mark's  one  conjunction  is  entirely  natural, 

7.  Mark  has  many  Aramaic  words,  which  he  translates 
into  Greek;  see  especially  iii,  17;  v,  41;  vii,  11;  vii,  34. 
It  would  be  easy  for  these  to  be  dropped  out  by  writers 
making  use  of  Mark's  material  for  Hellenistic  readers; 
but  very  unnatural  for  Mark  to  have  inserted  these 
Aramaic  words  into  the  Greek  texts  of  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

8.  Mark's  narrative  thruout  is  more  spirited  and  vivid 
than  either  Matthew's  or  Luke's.  It  would  be  much 
easier  for  these  graphic  touches  to  be  omitted  for  various 
reasons  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  even  tho  they  found  these 
before  them  in  their  Gospel  of  Mark,  than  for  Mark  to 
have  added  these  touches  in  copying  the  narratives  of 

•  See  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  139—11,  for  other  instances. 


16  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Matthew  and  Luke.  One  may  mention  especially  the 
details  about  the  appearance  and  dress  of  the  Baptist 
(Mk  i,  6) ;  the  four  men  carrying  the  litter  (ii,  3) ;  the 
statement,  "He  looked  around  upon  them  with  wrath, 
being  grieved  at  the  hardness  of  their  hearts"  (Mk  iii,  5); 
the  names  of  persons,  and  their  relatives,  unknown  to  the 
other  evangelists,  the  description  of  the  Gadarene  de- 
moniac, the  additional  details  of  the  conversation  between 
Jesus  and  the  parents  of  the  epileptic  boy  (ix,  20-24), 
and  many  similar  items. 

Luke's  great  interpolation:  its  non-use  of  mark 

Thruout  this  Great  Interpolation,  Luke  entirely  for- 
sakes Mark.i  Out  of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty-two 
verses  of  the  interpolation,  there  are  about  thirty-five 
which  contain  material  also  to  be  found  in  Mark.  But 
thirteen  of  these  thirty-five  verses  are  doublets.  And  of 
these  doublets,  the  member  which  appears  in  the  interpo- 
lation seems  never  to  agree  in  its  setting  with  the  verse  in 
Mark  to  which  it  is  parallel,  whereas  the  verse  which, 
outside  the  interpolation,  constitutes  the  other  member 
of  the  doublet  does  so  agree.  In  the  case  of  five  of  these 
doublets,  the  member  standing  outside  the  interpolation 
is  also  more  closely  similar  to  Mark  in  wording  than 
the  half  standing  in  the  interpolation.  The  thirteen 
verses  containing  the  doublets  therefore  came  apparently 
from  some  other  source  than  Mark. 

Nine  other  brief  sayings  in  the  interpolation  have  a 
parallel  in  Mark,  and  also  in  Matthew.  But  the  similarity 
in  each  case  is  greater  between  the  Marcan  and  Matthean 
than  between  the  Lucan  and  Marcan  forms,  and  thus 

I  For  an  elaborate  analysis  of  the  sources  of  the  material  in  the  Great 
Interpolation,  see  Hawkins,  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp. 
29-59. 


Dependence  of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  Mark     17 

indicates  tliat  these  Lucan  verses  were  not  drawn  from 
Mark,  tho  Matthew's  parallel  verses  apparently  were.^ 
The  placing  of  these  nine  verses  in  Luke  is  unlike  that  in 
Mark,  but  their  placing  in  Matthew  is  exactly  similar 
to  Mark's.  In  twenty-two  out  of  the  thirty-five  verses 
of  the  Great  Interpolation  that  are  paralleled  in  Mark 
there  are  thus  but  three  expressions,  at  the  most,  that  can 
possibly  be  held  to  indicate  that  Luke  is  here  following 
Mark. 

Two  more  such  expressions  are  found  in  the  remaining 
thirteen  verses.  Four  of  these  contain  the  discussion 
about  the  Great  Commandment,  paralleled  in  Mk  xii, 
28-34,  and  Mt  xxii,  34-40.  The  connection  is  identical 
in  Matthew  and  Mark,  but  very  different  in  Luke.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  introductory  question  of  the  scribe. 
Mark  and  Matthew  assign  to  the  questioner  the  Old 
Testament  quotation  which  Luke  assigns  to  Jesus.  The 
commendation  of  the  questioner,  common  to  Mark  and 
Luke,  and  the  addition,  also  common  to  them  against 
Matthew,  of  e^  6X775  rrjs  laxvos  aov  {ev  oXrj  rrj  lax^i  o'ov) 
would  naturally  point  toward  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon 
Mark,  but  are  not  strong  enough  to  counterbalance  so 
much  evidence  in  the  opposite  direction. 

The  next  seven  verses  (xi,  15,  17-23)  contain  the  de- 
fense of  Jesus  against  the  charge  of  having  a  devil.  Mark 
and  Luke  agree  but  slightly,  Matthew  and  Luke  very 
closely.  Matthew  has  136  words,  Luke  139,  Mark  only 
98,  whereas  the  narratives  which  Luke  takes  from  Mark 
are  invariably  abbreviated  by  Luke.  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  the  same  setting,  Mark  a  different  one.  Matthew 
follows  Mark  against  Luke  in  the  little  parable  of  the 

I  An  apparent  exception  is  Lli  xiv,  34  =Mk  ix,  50;  no  parallel  in 
Matthew.  Lk  xvii,  2  =Mk  ix,  42,  and  Lk  x,  27=Mkxii,  30  sliould  per- 
haps be  added,  but  are  not  so  clear. 


18  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Strong  Man  Armed;  Luke  has  no  parallel.  Matthew 
has  conflated  two  sources,  one  of  which  was  Mark,  but 
Luke  has  forsaken  Mark  for  the  other  source. 

The  remaining  two  verses,  the  parable  of  the  Mustard 
Seed  (Lk  xiii,  18-19;  Mk  iv,  30+;  Mt  xiii,  31+)  show 
the  same  features  as  those  just  considered.  We  conclude 
that  thruout  his  Great  Interpolation,  Luke,  while  having 
some  matter  paralleled  in  Mark,  was  not  following  Mark, 
but  some  other  source. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ORDER  OF  MARK'S  GOSPEL  COMPARED  WITH 
THAT  OF  MATTHEW  AND  THAT  OF  LUKE 

In  the  treatment  of  the  framework  of  the  Synoptics, 
something  has  been  said  of  the  way  in  which  Matthew 
and  Luke  treat  the  order  of  the  material  which  they  have 
taken  from  Mark.  The  subject,  however,  calls  for  a 
more  careful  analysis. 

At  the  opening  of  the  3d  chapters  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  these  writers  begin  their  use  of  Marcan  material. 
Thru  the  story  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  baptism  and  temp- 
tation of  Jesus,  and  his  first  preaching  in  Galilee,  Matthew 
and  Luke  follow  Mark's  order,  with  the  trifling  exception 
that  Luke  has  brot  forward  to  his  3d  chapter  the  ac- 
count of  John's  imprisonment,  which  in  Mark  is  not 
given  till  his  6th  chapter  and  in  Matthew  till  his  14th, 
Matthew's  order  here  being  the  same  as  Mark's.  Luke's 
insertion  of  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  between  the  baptism 
and  the  temptation  of  Jesus  does  not  constitute  a  devia- 
tion from  the  order,  but  only  an  addition  to  the  material, 
of  Mark.  In  Luke's  4th  chapter  (16-30)  he  brings  for- 
ward an  incident  which  Mark  relates  much  later  (Mk 
vi,  1-6) ,  the  incident  also  being  much  worked  over  by 
Luke.  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  follows  Mark  in  next 
relating  the  call  of  the  first  disciples;  Luke  continues 
his  deviation  in  order  by  postponing  this  till  later.  ^ 

1  Chapter  and  verse  for  each  of  these  sections  being  given  in  the  tabu- 
lated arrangement  of  this  same  material  on  pp.  24-27,  only  such  references 
are  given  here  as  are  necessary  to  help  the  reader  to  follow  the  analysis 
at  this  point. 

19 


20  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Luke  then  comes  back  to  Mark's  order  (Mk  i,  21-38; 
Lk  iv,  31-43),  and  follows  it  thru  four  sections:  the  inci- 
dent in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  the  healing  of 
Peter's  wife's  mother,  the  healings  in  the  evening,  and 
the  retirement  of  Jesus.  Of  these  four  sections,  Matthew 
omits  the  first,  presumably  because  he  considers  himself 
to  have  given,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  a  much  fuller 
account  of  the  effect  of  Jesus'  preaching  than  is  con- 
veyed by  the  words  of  Mark.  The  second  and  third  of 
the  four  sections  Matthew  postpones  till  after  his  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  The  last  one,  about  the  retirement  of 
Jesus,  he  omits,  because  he  has  no  place  for  it,  since  he 
has  not  recorded  the  preaching  at  Capernaum  and  the 
incident  attached  to  it,  out  of  which  the  retirement  came. 

Luke  then  inserts  (v,  1-11)  his  account  of  the  calling 
of  Peter.  He  then  returns  to  Mark's  order  (Mk  i,  40-45; 
Lk  V,  12-16)  in  the  healing  of  the  leper;  this  incident 
Matthew  has  postponed  till  after  his  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Matthew  again  brings  forward  the  account  of 
the  storm  on  the  lake  and  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  which 
Mark  does  not  relate  till  his  4th  and  5th  chapters.  But 
after  these  deviations  he  again  coincides  with  Mark  and 
Luke  in  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  the  calling  of  Levi, 
and  the  question  about  fasting.  Matthew  again  forsakes 
Mark's  order  by  bringing  forward  the  mission  of  the  twelve 
to  a  place  much  earlier  than  it  occupies  in  Mark's  narra- 
tive. Having  done  this  he  falls  again  into  the  Marcan 
order,  which  Luke  has  been  still  following,  and  relates 
in  the  same  order  with  Mark  the  walk  thru  the  corn  and 
the  healing  of  the  withered  hand. 

Luke  has  thus  far  shown  few  deviations  from  Mark's 
order,  Matthew  many.  These  deviations  of  Matthew's 
seem  mostly  to  have  been  occasioned  by  his  insertion  of 


Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke        21 

so  much  non-Marcan  material  in  his  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Luke  now  makes  a  sHght  transposition;  he 
relates  with  Mark  the  story  of  the  healings  and  the  crowd, 
and  the  calling  of  the  twelve,  but  in  the  reverse  order; 
he  has  thus  secured  a  better  introduction  to  his  Sermon 
on  the  Level  Place  (beginning  Lk  vi,  20).  After  the 
conclusion  of  that  sermon,  and  the  inclusion  of  much 
non-Marcan  material,  in  Luke;  and  after  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  in  Matthew,  and  the  insertion  by  him  of  much 
Marcan  material  which  in  Mark's  Gospel  comes  at  later 
points,  Matthew  and  Luke  come  back  to  Mark's  order 
in  the  Beelzebul  controversy.  Matthew  continues  with 
Mark  in  the  story  of  the  family  of  Jesus,  come  to  take  him 
home,  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  and  the  interpretation 
of  that  parable.  Luke  also  follows  Mark's  order  thruout 
these  three  sections,  tho  he  has  placed  all  three  of  them  at 
an  earlier  point  in  his  Gospel,  and  has  transposed  the 
first  section. 

Beginning  again  with  the  storm  on  the  lake  and  the 
Gadarene  demoniac,  Matthew  and  Luke  follow  Mark's 
order  thru  two  long  sections.  Matthew,  in  copying 
Mark's  earlier  narrative,  omitted  his  healing  of  the  para- 
lytic, his  call  of  Levi  (Matthew),  and  his  report  of  the  dis- 
cussion about  fasting,  where  these  occurred  in  Mark's 
2d  chapter.  He  therefore  inserts  them  here  in  his  9th 
chapter.  After  the  insertion  of  these  Matthew  comes 
back  to  the  order  of  Mark  in  his  story  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus.  Luke,  having  followed  Mark's  order  in  the 
earlier  narrative  where  Matthew  deviated  from  it,  follows 
it  here  uninterruptedly  thru  the  three  sections  about  the 
storm  on  the  lake,  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  and  the 
daughter  of  Jairus.  After  omitting  Mk  vi,  1-6,  the  story 
of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth,  which  Luke  has  given  in  an 


22  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

expanded  form  much  earlier,  Luke  again  follows  Mark's 
narrative  thru  two  sections  on  the  sending  out  of  the 
disciples  and  the  judgment  of  Herod  concerning  Jesus. 
He  omits  the  death  of  the  Baptist,  perhaps  under  the 
impression  that  this  will  be  inferred  from  his  leaving  him 
in  prison  in  an  earlier  chapter,  but  goes  on  with  Mark 
again  in  the  account  of  the  return  of  the  disciples  and  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  Matthew  has  come  back 
to  Mark's  order  at  Mk  vi,  14  (Mt  xiv,  1),  and  follows  it 
without  deviation  or  interruption  thru  about  seventy 
verses;  after  which,  tho  omitting  several  small  sections 
of  Marcan  material,  and  inserting  some  non-Marcan 
matter,  he  continues  to  follow  the  Marcan  order  to  Mk 
ix,  48;  thus  following  Mark's  order,  in  spite  of  additions 
and  omissions,  thru  more  than  three  of  Mark's  chapters, 
without  deviation.  Luke  has  fallen  out  at  Mk  vi,  45, 
and  takes  nothing  from  Mark  again  till  he  reaches  Mark's 
viii,  27;  at  which  point,  without  having  made  any  inser- 
tion of  his  own  peculiar  material,  he  again  takes  up  Mark's 
narrative,  and  follows  it  from  Mk  viii,  27,  to  Mk  ix,  8  (=  Lk 
ix,  18,  to  ix,  36);  then  making  another  omission  of  a  few 
Marcan  verses,  he  continues  to  follow  Mark  up  to  Mk  ix 
40.  In  spite  of  Luke's  omission  of  several  brief  Marcan 
sections,  and  of  more  than  three  Marcan  chapters  at 
another  point,  Luke  has  thus  not  disturbed  the  Marcan 
order  from  Mk  vi,  6,  to  Mk  ix,  40. 

Beginning  with  Mk  x,  1,  Matthew  follows  Mark,  tho 
making  an  insertion  of  16  verses,  up  to  Mk  xi,  11,  at 
which  point  he  transposes  a  few  verses.  Luke  has  come 
in  at  Mk  x,  13,  and  has  followed  up  to  Mk  x,  34,  at  which 
point  he  makes  an  omission  of  ten  Marcan  verses.  Going 
on  with  Mark  at  Mk  x,  46,  he  continues  to  follow  him 
(tho  inserting  his  story  of  Zaccheus  and  his  parable  of 


Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke        23 

the  talents)  to  Mk  xiii,  9,  omitting,  however,  Mark's  story 
of  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  and  the  speech  of  Jesus 
attached  to  this  incident  in  Mark's  Gospel.  After  the 
transposition  of  a  few  Marcan  verses  in  Mt  xxi,  12-13, 
Matthew  also  continues  Mark's  order,  beginning  with  Mk 
xi,  20,  down  to  Mk  xiii,  9. 

From  Mk  xiii,  9,  to  xiii,  32,  both  Matthew  and  Luke 
follow  Mark's  order.  At  Mk  xiii,  33-37,  they  come  upon 
a  section  which  Matthew  postpones  and  which  Luke  has 
previously  inserted.  After  the  insertion  of  some  non- 
Marcan  matter  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  of 
some  matter  peculiar  to  each,  both  Matthew  and  Luke 
go  on  with  the  Marcan  material,  beginning  where  they 
left  off  at  Mk  xiv,  1.  Luke  omits  Mk  xiv,  3-9,  because 
of  a  duplicate  or  variant  of  the  passage  which  he  has 
inserted  in  his  7th  chapter;  except  for  this  omission 
(which  does  not  affect  Matthew),  the  three  proceed  in 
the  same  order  down  to  Mk  xiv,  17,  where  Luke  again 
transposes  a  few  verses,  but  Matthew  follows  without 
deviation.  From  here  on  to  the  end  of  Mark's  Gospel, 
Matthew  follows  practically  without  deviation,  tho  adding 
much  matter  of  his  own.  Luke  makes  a  transposition 
of  the  story  of  Peter's  denial,  and  of  one  or  two  other 
items;  except  for  which  he  also  follows  Mark's  order 
substantially  as  he  finds  it. 

This  statement  of  the  relative  order  of  Marcan  material 
in  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels  has  been  made  in  a  way  to 
facilitate  comparison  in  the  large,  and  give  a  general  idea 
of  how  faithfully  Matthew  and  Luke  have  followed  the 
order  of  Mark.  For  purposes  of  studying  the  matter 
in  more  detail.  Table  I  is  appended.  The  sections  are 
given  and  numbered  as  they  occur  in  Mark,  and  also 
as  they  occur  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 


24 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


r-  -H  -«  ^  ;>)  M  rt  -H 

I       I       I       I       I       I       I       I       I 

^  -H  ^  ^  N  ^  -H 


>  >  t»:5:s:3 


I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I  ■■a 


''".2 .«.«•"•""  X :S :S :=  :S :=  :s  >  ><■; 


-H  (M  rH  1-1 1-H  00  M  ■*  ■*        rHINWM        .-I  T-H  rt  rH  Cq  C^        —• -<  J< 

I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I 

i-iiM       --<       CC  M 't  ■*  ■*  ^ -H  N  CO            ,-<rt,-irtrt  ,_i^^cC       c«3c«3 
lO 


>>>>>>>>;»>>> 


>  >  >  >  X  x:; 


>;>>>>> 


I    I    I    I    I    I    I  'l  'l  'l        I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I  'l    I    I  'l 


;>>>>>>      >> 


3  =  i5 


o  o  i: 
^  ;^,  a  cs  g 


C  1) 

0.2 


Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke        25 


I     I     I     I     I     I    ■-        I     I     I     I     I     I     I 


X  X  X  X  X 


M00  00M-^CO>O 

I    I    I    I    I    I    I 

M 't' -H  05  Tf  C<l -H 
-HIM  rtW 


10  05  COO® 
NWOCO 
I     I     I     I     I 


N(MM 

I     I     I 


eio 

CO^OOONiO 
■^  I  Tt<lC  CO 
I  -o   I    I    I    I 

I^  CO  CO  05  i-t  •^ 
CO  ^  'l^  ^   CO 

x*  x"  x"  x':s  S-" 


05  N  ■*  T-t  O  CO  CD  CO 

(N  CO  CO  ■*  N  •*    rH 

I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 

CCOCOiO'-l^rtCO 
MCOCOCO       (N 


C005-<i<C<IC0C0OI^OC0 
rH(MT)(lOlOlNC0C0>-l-H 

I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I 

•^t^OlOCO-H-t-^-H-H 

-H,-iC0^iO       C^CO       -H 


GNCOT        <— ICM!:OCOT*^lO 

I  I      I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 

■*(Nt^Tt<(N05'*OCOOON05 
-H(NIMC0  r-i  CO  CO  CO  ■*  ■* 


>>>>>>•! 


>  >      >>>?.>•: 


::3:sxxxxxxxx 


>  t»     t»  >  >  > 


O  cS  <?  »: 


a  "^  ■ 
o  o  £  fe-  " 


:  cs  SCO" 

J  cS  =S  0,  s 


:*"  o , 


o  o 


t^QK? 


as" 

S  J2  o  o"^ 
■^o  ".S  s 

^^  Oi  $  OJ 


-OT3  5 


ill 


.S  S.2  at5  =« 
S  oi  <c  ai  M-? 
-E-O'c-C-y. 


■*  G 


OJ  o  o 


26 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


NIC 


0>W 

77 

CO  t^  O  C5  rH  00  N 


I  I 


■-H  l-Hl-H  CS  C^  Tt< 


rti-i!N(MC<5 


otc«:rooo5r!iM''5-^w® 

•^•^M  "V  ^  c<l  M  CO  CO  CO 

I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I 


*S  'S  'I 


>>>X>>>;>> 


lOCOtOOiO 

■^  --I  N  M 

I     I     I     I     I 


>  >  >  ?  > 
X  X  X  X  X 
X  X  X  X  X 


3  00  •*  t^  t^  iH  »  ■* 

HNtJ<tJ<          l-Hrt  IN 

I  I  I  I  I  I  I 

.  lO -H  lO  lO  00  N  o 


XXX 


g  p  X  X  X 


OO^COON 
N  CO  COCO 
I     I     I     I     I 

^^c<^coco 


OtJICO 

I  I  I 

COt"H 


(M  « -^  ■.t  lO  (N  ' 

-H  rt  CO  CO  Tt<  lO  • 

I   I   I   I   I   I 

iH  CO  N- N  lO  !C  r 
-H.-HCOCO'* 

x'  x'  x"  x'  x"  x" 


-  ■*  t^  O  ■*  05  CO 
^COCO-*  rt 

L  J,  I   I   I   I   I 

D  00  >n  oo  i-H  lo  js 

IC^SOCO  OJ 


X  X  X  X  x-s-n 


X  X  X  X  X  X-1 


O  CO  t^  05  (N  t^  (N  05 --I 
IN  (N  (N  C<l  CO  CO  r^ 

I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I 

•*  rH  Tt<  OO  O  CO  rH  CO  O 
rHNININCOCO  rH 

'x'x'x'xx  x'x'x  X 


1-1  IN 

I  I 


XX 


O  C 

C  1- 

QJ*'  O  o 

.5  S  S'  o 

<*  Oj  oJ  g 


*>  5^  fi  ai 
o  ^  -  ^ 


C  5  Ml- 


O  tS 


w  o 


X  C  -t-  o 
C  bt-S  Wj, 

si  I" 


'3*'  S  D 


si  I 

o  o 


■   CS 


S  =*  £ 

^  O  3 


^  ^  ce  5g  ! 


cd.^  o  c^  t^ 


"  r-   -^   ^ 

aj  oj  o  aj  cs  <« 


1.5  '-5  1 


'OC 


ac^HE 


_       m*^  fi  ^  MtS  =>  C  ° 

—  .2  fe  a-  fe  2  o-=i  Si  cSS 
•g  o  a^:  •-  ac  o  cs.x 

aAa  es^  oj:  c  t,  S  £ 


Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke        27 


05 lO CO 00 00 >0  W •*  C0 1-1  TjiO-^O 
(MMTttiOtOt^  rHMCO  TflOO'-i 
I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  «,1  iJ_  ' 
NCOW'tiO®       1-1 1-1 IM  CO  CO  •*  lO 


(NC0'*'Ct^50  IN 

...     I     I     I 


X  X  X  5n  S^  X  'ij  *i^  *ij 


C^COOStOiM 
C0'*>tlO-H 
I  I  I  I  I 
COCOTflO-H 
MCO'^lO 


I    I    I    I    I    I      _L  L  L     111  I 


X  X  X  X  X  X  ' 


ftt< 

as 


01  3 


®  O  o 

C  tJ  cs  ai'5 

■  £^  o  o  a 

&£!--  fe.a  o 

o3_.2  -i  S  o 

oj  5  cs  3  ® 

^  "C  OJ  <B  X  £ 


CS1 


mFhi-i 


bi)5.2>" 

C5  •■==  X  o 


^-r^-K-S.^-e 


cs  5  cs 


D  (U  «  0 


Si 


28  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

A  comparison  of  the  number  in  the  Table  which  a 
given  section  bears  respectively  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
or  Luke  and  Mark  will  show  the  number  and  extent  of 
the  changes  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  permitted 
themselves  in  their  disposition  of  Marcan  material. 

deductions  from  the  table 

An  examination  of  the  preceding  table  will  show  how 
generally  both  Matthew  and  Luke  have  followed  the 
order  of  Mark. 

Of  the  87  Marcan  sections  retained  by  Luke,  only  11 
sections  (Nos.  6,  12,  21,  22,  23,  42-47)  are  seriously  mis- 
placed. From  sec.  35  to  the  end,  the  order  is  particularly 
well  preserved,  the  only  changes  being  in  the  placing  of 
49  before  48,  and  74  before  73.  Luke's  displacements 
are  usually  made  in  the  interest  of  a  better  historical  or 
literary  sequence;  some  of  them  may  also  be  occasioned 
by  his  large  omissions  of  Marcan  material  and  his  large 
insertions  of  peculiar  matter. 

Matthew  has  made  rather  a  larger  number  of  changes 
in  the  order  of  his  Marcan  material;  due  perhaps  to  his 
habit  of  combining  his  Marcan  and  his  other  matter,  and 
to  his  wish  to  present  most  of  his  sayings-material  in  one 
block  (chaps,  v-vii).  His  notable  transpositions  occur 
near  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  just  before  or  after  the 
insertion  of  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  in  that  section 
(the  sending  out  of  the  twelve)  where  he  has  made  his 
most  obvious  conflation  of  Marcan  and  other  matter. 
From  sec.  37  to  the  end,  however,  changes  in  order  are 
extremely  few.  The  insertion  of  8  between  54  and  55 
may  be  only  an  apparent  dislocation,  since  the  saying 
about  salt  may  here  not  have  been  derived  from  Mark 
but  from  Q.     The  placing  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple 


Order  of  Mark  in  Matthew  and  Luke        29 

before  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  (sees.  62,  63)  may  be 
due  to  his  wish  to  bring  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  into 
immediate  connection  with  the  remarks  to  which  it  gave 
rise;  the  transposition  is  an  improvement.  From  here 
on  to  the  end  the  sections  occur  precisely  as  in  Mark, 
except  that  21  is  inserted  between  74  and  75;  apparently 
owing  to  the  influence  of  Q.  The  table  will  also  show  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  practically  never  concur  in  forsaking 
the  order  of  Mark,  It  also  warrants  the  assertion  often 
made  of  late  years  that  Matthew  is  more  faithful  to  the 
content  of  Mark,  permitting  himself  fewer  omissions, 
but  Luke  is  more  faithful  to  his  order. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  OMISSIONS  OF  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  IN  THE 
MARCAN  NARRATIVEi 

OMISSIONS    MADE    BY    BOTH   MATTHEW   AND    LUKE 

The  omission  of  the  stories  of  the  heahng  of  the  deaf- 
and-dumb  man  and  the  bhnd  man  (Mk  vii,  31-37;  viii, 
22-26),  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  by  the  character  of 
those  accounts.  The  crassness  of  the  means  used  and 
the  apparent  difficulty  of  the  cures  offended  the  growing 
sense  of  the  dignity  of  Jesus. 

The  exceedingly  patronizing  answer  of  the  scribe  to 
Jesus  in  Mk  xii,  32-34  is  probably  omitted  by  Matthew 
and  Luke  for  the  same  reason.  The  parable  of  the  Seed 
Growing  of  Itself  (Mk  iv,  26-29)  may  have  been  omitted 
because  it  so  closely  duplicated  other  material  in  both 
Matthew  and  Luke;-  it  has  been  suggested  also  that  it 
might  have  a  discouraging  effect,  or  at  least  not  a  stimu- 
lating one,  upon  the  missionary  activities  of  the  early 
church. 

The  first  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  temple  (Mk  xi,  11)  is 
mentioned  by  Mark  in  three  words  only.  No  incident 
is  connected  with  it,  but  Jesus  is  said  to  have  looked  about 
and,  as  it  was  late,  to  have  gone  back  to  Bethany.  The 
incident  may  have  dropped  out  because  unsupported  by 
any  events  or  sayings;    or  the  three  words  els  to  Itpbv 

We  do  not  include  here  the  omission  of  single  words  or  phrases,  or 
even  occasionally  of  an  entire  verse,  where  it  is  plain  that  this  is  in  the 
interest  of  some  change  or  condensation. 

■  See  especially  the  parable  of  the  Weed  in  the  Field  (Mt  xiii,  24-30), 
the  Mustard  Seed  (Mk  iv,  30-32;  Mt  xiii,  31-32;  Lk  xiii,  18-19),  the 
Sower  (Mt  xiii,  1-9;    Lk  viii,  4-8). 

30 


Omissions  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark     31 

may  have  crept  into  the  text  of  Mark  after  its  use  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  (the  sense  is  equally  good  without 
them). 

The  mention  of  the  man  in  the  linen  garment  (Mk  xiv, 
51)  and  the  names  of  Alexander  and  Rufus  (Mk  xv,  21) 
may  have  been  omitted  because  neither  Matthew  nor 
Luke  nor  their  readers  would  be  acquainted  with  these 
persons. 

omissions  made  by  MATTHEW  IN  THE  MARCAN  NARRATIVE 

Matthew  omits  the  account  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus 
in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  (Mk  i,  21-28)  because 
he  wished  to  give  a  much  more  detailed  account  of  Jesus' 
preaching,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  This  explana- 
tion becomes  a  practical  certainty  when  we  observe  that 
the  statement  which  Mark  and  Luke  make  concerning 
the  effect  of  the  sermon  in  the  synagogue,  "They  were 
astonished  at  his  doctrine,  for  he  taught  them  as  one 
having  authority  and  not  as  the  scribes,"  is  used  by 
Matthew  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

Matthew's  omission  of  the  flight  of  Jesus  (Mk  i,  35-38) 
is  probably  due  to  its  failure  to  fit  into  his  story,  as  this 
has  been  changed  on  account  of  the  insertion  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  retirement  takes  place  from 
Capernaum,  as  a  result  of  the  enthusiasm  aroused  by 
Jesus'  preaching  there.  Matthew  does  not  represent 
Jesus  as  preaching  in  Capernaum.  He  brings  Jesus  to 
Capernaum  in  chaps.  8  and  9,  not  however  to  preach,  but 
to  work  miracles.  Jesus  closes  this  series  of  healings  with 
the  statement  (Mt  ix,  37-38),  "The  harvest  is  great  but 
the  laborers  are  few.  Pray  ye  therefore  the  lord  of  the 
harvest  that  he  send  forth  laborers  into  his  vineyard." 


32  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

The  retirement  does  not  follow  naturally  upon  this  series 
of  healings,  much  less  upon  these  words,  and  so  is  omitted. 

The  omission  of  the  story  of  the  unknown  exorcist 
(Mk  ix,  38-41),  as  Wernle  remarks,^  is  not  so  easy  to 
explain.  It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  by  its  omis- 
sion Matthew  secures  a  better  connection  between  the  two 
sayings  of  Jesus  which  are  thus  brought  into  succession: 
"He  that  receiveth  one  such  little  one  in  my  name  re- 
ceiveth  me,"  and  ''but  he  that  causeth  one  of  these  little 
ones  that  believe  in  me  to  stumble,  it  is  better  for  him, '' 
etc.  (Mt  xviii,  5,  6). 

The  story  of  the  widow's  mite  (Mk  xii,  41-44)  Matthew 
may  have  omitted  because  he  lacks  the  connection  for 
it  which  is  supplied  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  Mark  makes 
Jesus  speak  of  the  Pharisees  who  "devour  widow's 
houses,"  and  immediately  after  this  introduces  the  inci- 
dent of  the  widow's  self-sacrifice.  Matthew  has  omitted 
the  incident  because  he  has  not  the  proper  occasion  for  it.^ 

Matthew's  other  omissions  have  been  accounted  for 
under  the  omissions  common  to  him  with  Luke.  The 
sum  total  of  them  is  very  small  and  in  general  they  are 
easily  accounted  for. 

OMISSIONS    MADE    BY    LUKE    IN    THE    MARCAN    NARRATIVE^ 

Luke  omits  the  circumstantial  account  of  the  death 
of  the  Baptist  (Mk  vi,  17-29) ;  he  has  long  ago  inserted 
the  account  of  his  imprisonment  (Lk  iii,  19-20),  wishing 
to  finish  with  John  before  beginning  with  Jesus.  "But 
the  circumstantial  account  did  not  fit  in  that  place."* 

1  Wernle,  Synoptische  Frage,  p.  126. 

-  Thruout  this  discussion  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  Wernle,  as  anyone 
must  be  wtio  has  read  his  Synoptische  Frage. 

3  Wernle  includes  among  these  the  defense  of  Jesus  in  Mk  iii,  23-30, 
practically  duplicated  in  Lk  xi,  17-23.  Why  not  a  transposition,  rather 
than  an  omission  ?     So  considered  here. 

^  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  p.  5. 


Omissions  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark     33 

The  longest  omission  of  continuous  Marcan  material 
is  made  by  Luke  in  omitting  tiie  whole  of  Mk  vi,  45  to 
viii,  26.  This  long  omission  immediately  precedes  the 
long  insertion  of  special  Lucan  material,  indicating  a 
possible  difficulty  in  combining  the  two  sources  at  this 
point.  Quite  without  this,  however,  there  are  more  or 
less  obvious  reasons  for  Luke's  omission  of  every  section 
in  this  long  passage.  He  avoids^  the  repetition  of  the 
same  story,  and  may  have  regarded  Mark's  feeding  of  the 
four  thousand  (Mk  viii,  1-10)  as  a  repetition  of  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand  which  Luke  has  already  copied  from 
him. 

The  demand  for  a  sign  is  a  doublet  in  Matthew; 
Luke  has  taken  it  once  with  Matthew  from  Q  and  there- 
fore does  not  care  to  take  it  with  him  here  again  from 
Mark  (Mk  viii,  11-13).  The  dispute  about  things  that 
defile  (Mk  vii,  1-23)  had  no  significance  for  a  gentile 
writer  or  his  gentile  readers.  As  early  as  his  4th  chap- 
ter, Luke  has  represented  Jesus  as  turning  from  the 
Jews,  who  had  rejected  him,  to  the  gentiles;  he  cannot 
therefore  use  Mark's  story  of  the  Canaanitish  woman, 
(Mk  vii,  24-30),  with  its  apparently  narrow  national 
outlook:  "It  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread 
and  throw  it  to  the  dogs."^  The  crossing  of  the  lake  to 
Gennesaret  has  in  Mark  (vi,  53^56)  no  particular  incident 
connected  with  it,  merely  the  statement  that  many 
people  came  to  Jesus  and  were  healed.  It  may  have  been 
omitted  by  Luke  because  he  has  a  duplicate  in  viii,  22-25. 

1  Yet  not  always.  Cf.  his  two  bands  of  teachers,  his  healing  of  ten 
lepers  and  of  one,  his  two  disputes  about  priority  among  the  disciples, 
his  three  predictions  of  the  passion  and  two  of  the  resurrection.  But  cf . 
his  omission  of  anointing  at  Bethany,  the  barren  flg  tree,  the  mocking  by 
Pilate's  soldiers,  because  of  their  duplications  of  his  material  already  used. 
See  Hawkins,  op.  cit.,  69. 

2  Matthew  takes  no  offense  at  this;  for  he  even  adds  to  it,  "I  am  not 
sent  except  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel." 


34  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

The  omission  of  this  item  was  no  particular  loss  to  Luke's 
account;  but  with  its  omission  the  incident  of  the  walking 
on  the  water  also  fell  out.  The  latter  may  have  been 
omitted  also  because  of  its  implied  aspersion  upon  the 
disciples.  Luke  may  have  been  the  more  ready  to  drop 
this,  as  his  interest  in  the  miracles  of  Jesus  is  confined 
more  largely  to  the  healings,  the  miracles  peculiar  to 
Luke  being  entirely  of  this  kind. 

Luke  omitted  the  discussion  of  Jesus  with  the  Pharisees 
about  Elias  (Mk  ix,  9-13)  because  it  had  no  interest  for 
his  gentile  readers.  The  omission  of  the  saying  about 
offenses  (Mk  ix,  42-48)  is  accounted  for  by  Luke's  having 
a  parallel  for  the  first  part  of  it  in  another  connection; 
the  last  part,  about  cutting  off  the  hand  or  the  foot, 
may  have  seemed  to  him,  with  his  Greek  taste,  too  harsh 
a  saying  to  be  attributed  to  Jesus. 

Luke  omitted  the  journey  thru  Judaea  (Mk  x,  1)  (or 
Perea)  because  in  its  place  he  has  given  a  long  account 
(Lk  ix,  51 — xviii,  14)  (again  his  great  interpolation)  of  the 
journey  thru  Samaria.  The  terminus  of  both  journeys 
and  their  place  in  the  story  are  the  same.  The  question 
about  marriage  and  divorce  (Mk  x,  2-12)  is  again  con- 
nected with  a  Pharisaic  dispute;  Luke  has  also  given  his 
own  briefer  version  of  the  same  item  (xvi,  18);  for  either 
or  both  of  these  reasons  he  omits  it  here.  The  request  of 
James  and  John  for  chief  seats  in  the  kingdom  (Mk  x, 
35-45)  Luke  omits  because  it  reflects  upon  the  motives 
of  those  disciples;  Matthew  perceives  the  same  objection 
to  it,  but,  more  faithful  to  his  sources  he  gets  over  the 
difficulty  by  attributing  the  request  to  the  mother, 
instead  of  to  the  disciples.  Mark's  discussion  about  the 
disciples'  failure  to  bring  bread  (Mk  viii,  14-21)  Luke 
may  have  omitted  because  of  its  implication  of  carelessness 


Omissions  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark     35 

on  the  part  of  the  disciples.  Luke  also  uniformly  avoids 
any  implication  of  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Jesus, 
and  this  incident  includes  one  such.^ 

The  question  about  the  great  commandment  (Mk  xii, 
28-34)  Luke  may  have  omitted  because  it  also  is  connected 
with  a  dispute  with  a  scribe.  Or  if  Luke's  passage  (x, 
25-28)  be  considered  a  parallel  to  it,  this  is  enough  to 
account  for  its  omission  here.  On  this  latter  supposition, 
Luke  has  used  the  saying  as  an  introduction  to  his  story 
of  the  Good  Samaritan.  The  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  (Mk 
xi,  12-14)  Luke  apparently  regarded  as  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  parable  of  the  Fig  Tree,  which  he  gives. 
Whether  so  or  not,  it  is  of  the  same  kind  as  the  other 
miracles  which  Luke  omits,  in  that  it  is  not  a  miracle 
of  healing.  The  anointing  in  Bethany  (Mk  xiv,  3-9)  has 
a  parallel  in  the  anointing  (both  in  the  "house  of  Simon") 
by  the  sinful  woman,  which  Luke  has  related  in  his  7th 
chapter  (vss.  36-50).  "The  second  session  of  the  san- 
hedrim he  has  combined  with  the  first. "^ 

Concerning  the  great  omission  of  Luke  (Mk  vi,  45 — 
viii,  26),  it  should  be  added  that  his  Gospel  is  now  con- 
siderably longer  than  Mark's  and  even  than  Matthew's. 
He  had  much  material  of  his  own  to  incorporate.  Rolls 
of  papyrus  were  of  an  average  length,  and  not  capable 
of  indefinite  extension.  Luke  could  not  include  all  Mark's 
material  without  omitting  much  that  he  has  derived 
elsewhere.  If  it  was  necessary  or  convenient  for  him 
to  make  an  omission  amounting  in  length  to  the  matter 
he  has  passed  over  in  Mark,  it  was  much  easier  and  simpler 
for  him  to  omit  an  entire  section  of  that  length,  than  to 

1  Hawkins,  op.  cit.,  p.  71.  It  seems  strange  that  Hawkins'  discussion 
of  the  "great  omission"  contains  no  reference  to  Wernle's  treatment  of 
the  same  subject. 

2  Wernle,  op.  cit.,  p.  6. 


36  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

go  here  and  there  thru  Mark  to  make  his  necessary  total 
of  eliminations.  This  consideration,  with  the  character 
of  the  material  omitted,  sufficiently  accounts  for  the 
"great  omission."^ 

1  On  the  size  of  ancient  boolis,  see  Sanday,  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  25-26; 
cf.  Birt,  Das  antike  Buchwesen. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CHANGES  OF  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  IN  THE 
NARRATIVE  OF  MARK^ 

THE    BAPTISM    OF   JESUS 
(Mk  i,  9-11;  Mt  iii,  13-17;  Lk  iii,  21-22) 

Matthew  adds  to  Mark's  account  the  conversation 
in  which  John  objects  to  baptizing  Jesus,  and  Jesus  quiets 
his  scruples  (Mt  iii,  14-15).  This  reflects  the  later  time, 
when  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to  John  had  been  historically 
demonstrated,  and  when  the  baptism  might  have  given 
offense  by  seeming  to  imply  a  need  of  forgiveness.  The 
item  approaches  the  point  of  view  of  the  similar  addition 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Matthew,  who  has  added  this 
item  here,  is  the  only  evangelist  who  says  that  John's 
baptism  was  els  fxeravoLav  (iii,  11).  Matthew's  added 
conversation  appears,  still  more  elaborated,  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews.  Luke  (iii,  21)  adds  that  Jesus  was  pray- 
ing during  his  baptism,  which  may  be  an  accommodation 
to  the  custom  of  the  early  church.  Mark  says  the  voice 
from  the  sky  was  addressed  to  Jesus;  Matthew  represents 
it  as  addressed  to  the  crowd,  perhaps  to  give  more  public 
honor  to  Jesus.  The  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  adds  to 
Mark's  ''in  thee  I  am  well  pleased,"  the  quotation  from 
the  Psalms,  "this  day  have  I  begotten  thee";  and  cer- 
tain MSS  contain  the  same  words  in  the  text  of  Luke, 
omitting  "in  thee  I  am  well  pleased."  These  variations 
show  the  freedom  of  the  early  tradition,  but  its  unanimity 

1  For  complete  and  detailed  discussion,  see  Wernle,  Wellhausen,  Har- 
nack. 

37 


38  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

in  the  idea  that  the  baptism  was  Jesus'  messianic  conse- 
cration. Matthew  and  Luke  replace  ^Mark's  ax'-ionivovs, 
a  word  not  elsewhere  found,  with  a  word  common  in  such 
connections. 

THE    CALLING    OF    THE    FIEST   DISCIPLES 
(Mk  i,  16-20;  Mt  iv,  18-22;  Lk  v,  1-11) 

Luke  postpones  this  account,  and  in  connection  with 
it  gives  the  story  of  the  miraculous  draft  of  fishes,  unknown 
to  Mark  and  Matthew.  The  reason  is  not  apparent, 
especially  since  the  transposition  involves  Luke  in  some 
anachronisms.  Matthew  follows  ^Mark's  account  closely/ 
retaining  even  the  parenthetical  and  appended  explanation 
in  vs.  16.  He  omits  Mark's  words,  "with  the  hired  men," 
perhaps  because  of  his  general  tendency  toward  condensa- 
tion, perhaps  because  the  departure  of  James  and  John 
from  their  father  is  rendered  less  critical  b}'  Mark's 
mention  of  the  hired  men. 

JESUS    IN   THE   SYNAGOGUE    AT   CAPERNAUM 
(Mk  i,  21-28;  Mt  vii,  28-29;  Lk  iv,  31-37) 

Luke  omits  "and  not  as  the  scribes,"  because  his 
readers  would  not  understand  the  allusion.  He  replaces 
iMark  s  awkward  phrase  if  irvtvjxaTi  aKadapro.  bj'  the 
good  Greek  phrase  ex^^i^  Trvev/jia  daLfxovlov  aKaddprov. 
He  omits  ]\Iark's  mention  of  Galilee  at  the  end  of  his 
account,  because  he  has  inserted  it  at  the  beginning. 
Matthew's  omission  of  the  whole  storj^  may  be  controlled 
by  his  unwillingness,  elsewhere  manifested,  to  represent 
the  demons  as  recognizing  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 

I  See  pp.  95-96,  where  the  account  of  the  call  of  the  first  disciples  is 
further  discussed,  and  printed  in  heavy -faced  tjpe. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      39 

THE    healing    of   PETER's    MOTHER-IN-LAW 
(Mk  i,  29-31;  Mt  viii,  14-15;  Lk  iv,  38-39) 

Mark  calls  Peter  by  the  name  of  Simon,  as  is  uniform 
with  him  up  to  the  time  Jesus  gives  him  the  name  of 
Peter  at  his  calling  of  the  twelve.  Matthew  calls  him 
Peter,  by  which  name  he  knows  him  from  the  beginning. 
Luke's  displacement  of  the  call  of  Peter  involves  him  in 
the  anachronism  of  having  the  heaHng  take  place  in  his 
house  before  he  becomes  a  disciple. 


THE   HEALINGS   IN   THE   EVENING 
(Mk  i,  32-34;  Mt  viii,  16-17;  Lk  iv,  40-41) 

Mark  says  "In  the  evening  when  the  sun  was  set." 
Matthew  has  reduced  the  redundancy  of  this  expression 
by  saying  merely  "When  it  was  evening."  Luke  has 
caught  the  point  of  Mark's  expression,  namely,  that  the 
Sabbath  was  over,  and  so  has  reduced  the  pleonasm  by 
saying  only  "The  sun  having  set."  Mark  says  they  brot 
all  the  sick  to  Jesus  and  he  healed  many.  Matthew  im- 
proves this  by  saying  they  brot  many  and  he  healed  all. 
Luke  goes  a  step  farther  and  says  they  brot  all,  and  he 
healed  every  one.  No  explanation  is  necessary  for  these 
changes  except  the  natural  desire  to  avoid  the  implication 
that  there  were  some  whom  Jesus  did  not  heal,  and  to  make 
the  statement  of  his  cures  as  positive  and  inclusive  as 
possible.  Matthew  mentions  only  the  possessed,  Mark 
puts  the  sick  and  the  possessed  in  the  same  class,  Luke 
gives  a  separate  paragraph  to  each.  Both  Matthew 
and  Luke   avoid    Mark's    irregular    and    unusual    form 


40  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

THE    retirement   OF   JESUS 
(Mk  i,  35-38;  Lk  iv,  42-43) 

Matthew  omits,  for  reasons  already  given. ^  Luke 
avoids  Mark's  strange  word,  KoofwroXeLs.  Where  Mark 
says  "Simon  and  those  with  him,"  Luke  says  "the  crowd," 
because  in  Luke's  story  Simon  is  not  yet  a  disciple. 

THE  CALLING  OF  PETER 
(Lk  V,  1-11) 
Luke  here  displays  his  freedom  in  working  over  the 
story  of  Mark.  He  builds  upon  Mk  i,  19,  yet  instead  of 
saying  that  the  fishermen  were  mending  their  nets  in  their 
boats,  he  says  they  had  gone  out  of  their  boats  and  were 
washing  their  nets.  He  has  apparently  read  Mk  iv,  1, 
also,  and  builds  upon  this  the  statement  about  Jesus'  going 
into  the  boat  to  get  away  from  the  crowd  (which  state- 
ment he  later  omits  when  he  comes  to  it  in  Mark's  parable 
of  the  Sower).  (There  is  a  reminiscence  here  also  of  Mk 
iii,  9.)  After  the  draft  of  fishes,  when  he  comes  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  to  Peter,  he  picks  up  again  a  fragment  of 
Mark's  account,  tho  still  with  an  addition  and  with  a 
deviation  in  the  wording;  Mark  says  devre  ott'lcfo)  fjLOv, 
Kal  iroirjaix)  vfxas  yeueadai  dXeets  audpoiiraiu;  Luke  says 
fxrj  (po^ov  ■  airo  rod  vvv  audpo^wovs  ear]  i^ojypoip.  Luke's 
closing  statement,  "They  left  all  and  followed  him"  is 
substantially,  tho  not  quite  in  wording,  the  same  as 
Mark's.  No  example  could  be  more  striking,  of  Luke's 
freedom  in  his  treatment  of  Mark.  He  exercises  this 
freedom,  however,  in  the  narratives  rather  than  in  the 
words  of  Jesus;  when  he  comes  to  these  latter,  even  in 
the  midst  of  a  narrative  which  he  has  largely  created  out 

■  P.  30;    see  also  pp.  95-96,  where  the  account  of  the  calUng  of  the 
first  disciples  is  printed  in  lieavy-faced  type  and  is  furtlier  discussed. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      41 

of  mere  fragments  of  Mark,  he  follows  Mark  compara- 
tively closely.  In  not  many  narratives  does  Luke  go  to 
quite  such  lengths  in  his  re-working  as  in  this  story  and 
the  account  of  the  rejection  (initial  preaching)  at  Naza- 
reth. But  this  is  typical  of  him,  as  compared  with 
Matthew's  treatment  of  the  same  source. 

the  healing  of  the  leper 
(Mk  i,  40-45;  Mt  viii,  1-4;  Lk  v,  12-16) 
Matthew  and  Luke  both  omit  Mark's  e/jL^pL/jLtjaa- 
fxepos,  for  which  they  have  in  this  case  double  ground;  it 
is  an  unusual  word,  and  it  implies  that  Jesus  was  angry. 
Luke  avoids  Mark's  statement  that  the  man  directly  dis- 
obeyed Jesus'  command  not  to  tell  of  his  cleansing. 

the  healing  of  the  paralytic 
(Mk  ii,  1-12;  Mt  ix,  1-8;  Lk  v,  17-26) 
Both  Matthew  and  Luke  have  supplied  their  own 
introductions.  Both  substitute  elwev  for  Mark's  Xeyet 
(Mk  ix,  5)  (a  correction  which  Luke  invariably  makes). 
Both  use  substitutes  for  Mark's  Kpin^arTov.  Luke 
avoids  Jesus'  address  to  the  man  as  reKvov.  In  the 
words  of  Jesus  to  his  critics  and  to  the  paralytic,  both 
follow  Mark  with  general  fidelity,  and  tho  Mark's  vss. 
56-10  appear  to  interrupt  the  story,  both  follow  him  in 
their  inclusion  of  these  verses.  Luke's  change  of  Mark's 
vs.  7  is  a  fine  example  of  his  ability  to  make  an  improve- 
ment in  the  sense  with  the  least  possible  change  in  the 
wording.  Mark  reads,  ri  ovtos  ovto)^  XaXet;  ^Xaacfyri- 
)uet'  Luke  changes  to  t'ls  eanu  6s  XaXet  ^\aa4>r]ij,las; 
The  latter  fits  much  better  into  the  question,  "Who  has 
power  to  forgive  sins  except  God?"  Mark  has  made 
Jesus,  in  his  dispute  with  his  critics,  say  "Which  is  easier. 


42  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

to  say,  ....  or  to  say,  rise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk  ?  " 
Matthew  and  Luke  make  him  leave  out  the  clause  "take 
up  thy  bed,"  reserving  this  for  Jesus'  actual  address  to  the 
man  a  little  later,  whereas  Mark  uses  it  in  both  places. 
Luke  heightens  the  effect  of  his  story  by  saying  ''He  took 
up  that  upon  which  he  had  been  carried,"  instead  of  "he 
took  up  his  bed."  This  may  be  a  heightening  of  the 
contrast,  or  perhaps  a  hint  that  he  did  not  know  ex- 
actly what  Mark's  Kpa^arTov  was,  tho  he  has  elsewhere 
replaced  it  by  Kkivlbiov} 

THE  CALLING  OF  LEVI  (mATTHEW) 
(Mk  ii,  13-17;  Mt  ix,  9-13;  Lk  v,  27-32) 
Matthew  and  Luke  both  correct  Mark's  unusual  if 
not  ungrammatical  use  of  ort  in  the  sense  of  why.  Mark 
says  "Why  does  he  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners?" 
Matthew  improves  by  reading,  "Why  does  your  master 
eat,"  etc.  Luke  improves  still  more  by  directing  the 
question  to  the  disciples  in  such  manner  as  to  include  Jesus, 
"Why  do  ye  eat,"  etc. 

THE  QUESTION  ABOUT  FASTING 
(Mk  ii,  18-22;  Mt  ix,  14-17;  Lk  v,  3.3-39) 
Matthew  and  Luke  avoid  Mark's  verb  eTrtpctTrret,  a 
word  found  nowhere  but  in  this  verse  of  Mark's  (ix,  21). 
At  the  end  they  avoid  Mark's  clumsy  expression,  "The 
wine  and  the  bottles  will  be  destroyed,"  and  say,  "The 
wine  will  be  spilled  and  the  bottles  destroyed. "^  They 
both  omit  the  last  part  of  Mark's  vs.   19,  an  obvious 

1  This  latter  is  not  the  usual  word  for  "bed,"  but  means  a  little  bed — 
some  sort  of  bed. 

2  Agreement  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  these  two  corrections  is  held  to 
show  Urmarkus.  The  need  of  correction  is  obvious  enough,  and  the  cor- 
rections are  the  natural  ones  to  make.  So  also  Sinaiticus  in  Mark,  with 
other  authorities. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      43 

pleonasm  and  possibly  a  later  insertion.  Luke's  addition 
in  his  vs.  39  does  not  fit  well,  but  is  bracketed  by  Westcott 
and  Hort  and  is  probably  an  insertion.  More  difficult 
(and  so  far  as  I  see  impossible)  to  explain  is  Luke's  sugges- 
tion that  the  patch  to  be  put  on  the  old  garment  is  cut  out 
of  a  new  one — -an  unusual  procedure,  certainly.  He  may 
possibly  have  been  misled  into  this  statement  by  his  desire 
to  heighten  the  contrast  between  old  and  new. 

THE  WALK  THRU  THE  CORN 

(Mk  ii,  23-28;  Mt  xii,  1-8;  Lk  vi,  1-5) 

Matthew  and  Luke  avoid  Mark's  expression  odou  tol- 
ttv,  which  sounds  as  if  Mark  meant  to  say  that  Jesus 
made  a  new  path  thru  the  corn.  They  add,  what  Mark 
forgets  to  say,  that  he  and  his  disciples  ate  the  grain. 
Luke  adds  that  they  rubbed  it  in  their  hands.  They  are 
led  to  these  corrections  by  the  fact  that  the  justification 
of  Jesus  by  the  example  of  David  has  to  do,  not  with 
making  a  road  thru  the  grain,  but  with  eating  on  the 
Sabbath  and,  perhaps,  eating  something  which  it  would 
not  ordinarily  have  been  proper  for  him  to  eat.  Matthew 
and  Luke  omit  Mark's  colorless  and  unnecessary  "when  he 
had  need,"  and  his  historically  difficult  reference  to  Abi- 
athar.^  All  three  have  the  clause,  "  and  to  those  that  were 
with  him,"  but  each  in  a  different  place.  Luke  improves 
the  order  of  the  clauses  in  Mark's  26th  verse.  Matthew 
adds  to  the  words  of  Jesus  the  reference  to  the  priests  pro- 
faning the  temple  and  yet  being  guiltless.  The  addition  is 
suggested  by  David's  eating  the  shewbread,  but  does  not  fit 
the  case  so  closely,  since  Jesus  was  not  defending  himself 
against  the  charge  of  profaning  a  holy  place.  Both  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  omit  Mark's  saying  that  ''The  Sabbath 

1  Some  MSS  omit  this  reference  in  Marie. 


44  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  Sir  John 
Hawkins  suggests  that  the  saying  may  have  been  offensive 
to  Jewish  ears.  This  may  account  for  Matthew's  omis- 
sion of  it;  and  Luke  may  have  omitted  it  because  he  and 
his  readers  had  not  much  interest  in  discussions  about 
the  Sabbath.  But  it  is  perhaps  still  more  likely  that  the 
sentence  is  a  later  addition  to  Mark. 

THE  MAN  WITH  THE  WITHERED  HAND 
(Mk  iii,  1-6;  Mt  xii,  9-14;  Lk  vi,  6-11) 
Luke  changes  Mark's  aa^^acnv  to  aa^(3aTcp,  perhaps 
because  he  is  not  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  (Aramaic) 
usage  of  the  plural  of  this  word  in  the  sense  of  the  singular. 
Both  Matthew  and  Luke  avoid  the  direct  statement  of 
Mark  in  his  5th  verse  that  Jesus  was  angry. 

THE    CROWD    AND    THE    HEALINGS 
(Mk  iii,  7-12;  Mt  xii,  15-21;  Lk  vi,  17-19) 
Matthew's  treatment  of  Mark  is  influenced  by  the 
fact  that  just  before  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  has,  in 
iv,  25,  given  a  somewhat  similar  statement.  Luke's  trans- 
position has  been  noticed.^ 

THE  CALLING  OF  THE  TWELVE 
(Mk  iii,  13-19;  Mt  x,  2-4;  Lk  vi,  12-16) 
Characteristic  of  Luke  is  his  "He  was  continuing  all 
night  in  prayer.  "^  The  addition  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
of  the  words  6  a8eK(f)6s  ahrov  (top  dde\4>6u  avrov)  is 
held  by  some  to  indicate  their  use  of  a  Marcan  text  differ- 
ent from  ours.  The  order  of  the  names  is  not  the  same  in 
any  two  of  the  three  lists.  Both  Matthew  and  Mark  avoid 
an  anacoluthon  of  Mark  in  his  vs.  16,  and  omit  the  appel- 

'P.  21.  s  See  Lk  iii,  21;   ix,  18,  28,  29;   xi,  1. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      45 

lative  "Boanerges,"  with  its  translation.  Matthew  and 
Luke  follow  Mark  in  naming  Matthew,  tho  in  their 
account  of  his  call  in  Mt  ix,  13,  and  Lk  v,  27,  Luke  follows 
Mark  in  calling  him  Levi.  Luke  changes  Mark's  "Simon 
the  Canaanite"  to  "Simon  the  Zealot."  Matthew  alone 
gives  the  name  of  Lebbaeus,  Mark  alone  says  Thaddeus, 
Luke  alone  names  Judas  the  son  of  James.  No  simple 
explanation  suggests  itself  as  covering  all  these  deviations. 
Matthew  or  Luke  or  both  may  have  been  influenced  by  a 
similar  list  of  names  in  Q  or  some  other  non-Marcan 
source;  but  that  both  of  them  are  here  following  Mark  is 
rendered  practically  certain  by  their  addition  of  the 
appended  parenthetical  statement  concerning  Judas,  with 
which  all  three  accounts  close. 

THE   PHARISAIC   ACCUSATION    AND    JESUS'    DEFENSE 
(Mk  iii,  20-30;  Mt  xii,  22-37;  Lk  xi,  14-23) 

The  discussion  of  this  section  is  complicated  by  the 
presence  of  the  section  in  both  Mark  and  Q,  and  is  there- 
fore postponed  to  a  later  time.^ 

THE  TRUE  BROTHERHOOD  OF  JESUS ;  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE 

sower;  the  PURPOSE  OF  THE  PARABLES 

(Mk  iii,  31— iv,  12;  Mt  xii,  46— xiii,  15;  Lk  viii,  4—10,  19-21) 

Luke  has  done  more  than  Matthew  to  turn  Mark's 
narrative  into  good  Greek,  tho  Matthew  has  also  im- 
proved it.  The  agreement  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the 
addition  of  avTov  in  Mt  xiii,  4,  and  Lk  viii,  5,  where 
it  does  not  occur  in  their  exemplar  (Mk  iv,  4),  is  sometimes 
held  to  indicate  a  text  of  Mark  containing  this  word.  The 
hypothesis  of  assimilation  seems  simpler;  or  in  this  case 
even  accidental  agreement  would  not  be  strange.     The 

1  See  pp.  153,  238-39. 


46  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

insertion  of  TrdXtj^  in  Mk  iv,  1,  not  in  Mattliew  and  Luke, 
has  been  suggested  by  Weiss  to  be  the  work  of  an  editor 
who  saw  the  confused  character  of  the  geographical  refer- 
ences since  Mk  iii,  1 } 

THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  SOWER 
(Mk  iv,  13-20;  Mt  xiii,  18-23;  Lk  viii,  11-15) 

Matthew  changes  Mark's  Saraj^as  to  6  Trovrjpds.  The 
latter  is  used  by  Matthew  in  this  sense  five  times,  and  not 
at  all  by  Mark  and  Luke.  The  change  may  therefore 
be  regarded  as  styhstic.  Luke's  addition  of  "lest  they 
should  believe  and  be  saved"  sounds  like  a  Christian  addi- 
tion, and  may  be  explained  by  the  development  of  the 
Christian  doctrine.  Mark's  loose  and  unliterary  addition 
of  "and  the  desires  for  the  rest  of  the  things,"  after  the 
"cares  of  the  world  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,"  Luke 
very  naturally  corrects  into  "the  cares  and  wealth  and 
pleasures  of  life."  In  iv,  19,  Mark  uses  the  participle 
eia-Kopevoiievai  in  a  somewhat  inexact  manner:  "The 
cares  of  the  world  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches  and  the 
desires  for  the  rest  of  the  things,  coming  in,  choke  the 
word."  Luke's  change  may  be  accounted  for  by  his 
desire  to  improve  the  style;  which  he  does  without  dis- 
carding Mark's  misplaced  participle.  For  he  says,  "And 
by  the  cares  ....  as  they  [i.e.,  the  people  who  have 
heard  the  word]  proceed,  they  are  choked  and  rendered 
unfruitful."  Probably  Schmiedel's  statement,  in  his 
article  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  that  this  instance  alone 
would  prove  literary  relation  between  Mark  and  Luke 
is  too  strong;  especially  considering  the  fact  that  Luke's 
participle  is  not  precisely  the  same  as  Mark's;  but  the 
deviation  is  certainly  an  interesting  one.     In  the  earlier 

1  Das  alteste  Evangelium,  p.  165. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      47 

part  of  the  passage  Matthew  and  Luke  both  omit  Mark's 
reference  to  the  dulness  of  the  disciples.  The  omission 
is  due  to  their  customary  deference  to  the  feeling  of  a  later 
time. 

A    GROUP    OF   DETACHED    SAYINGS 
(Mk  iv,  21-25;   Mt  v,  15;  x,  26;  vii,  2;    xiii,  12;    Lk  viii,  16-18; 

vi,  38) 

The  divergences  in  wording,  the  fact  that  the  verses 
found  together  in  Mark  are  separated  in  both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  and  the  additional  fact  of  doublets  in  Matthew 
or  Luke  for  all  but  one  of  Mark's  verses,  indicate  beyond 
a  doubt  that  these  verses  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q. 

THE    PARABLE    OF   THE   MUSTARD   SEED 
(Mk  iv,  30-32;  Mt  xiii,  31-32;  Lk  xiii,  18-19) 

This  section  also  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q.  Luke  is 
perhaps  independent  of  Mark  here,  preferring  to  follow  Q. 
Matthew  seems,  as  often,  to  try  to  combine  the  two 
sources,  showing  some  resemblances  to  Mark  as  against 
Luke,  and  others  to  Luke  as  against  Mark.  The  passage  is 
narrative  only  in  Mark,  parable  only  in  Luke,  and  a  com- 
bination of  narrative  and  parable  in  Matthew.  The 
anacoluthon  in  Mk  iv,  31,  is  avoided  by  Matthew  and 
Luke.i 

THE   STORM    ON   THE   LAKE 
(Mk  iv,  35-41;  Mt  viii,  23-27;  Lk  viii,  22-25) 

Matthew  and  Luke  omit  the  statement  that  other 
boats  accompanied  the  one  in  which  Jesus  sailed.  Per- 
haps, as  Hawkins  suggests,  they  wondered  how  these 
weathered  the  storm.  Or,  since  the  point  of  narrating  the 
story  has  to  do  only  with  the  boat  in  which  Jesus  sailed, 
they  may  simply  have  seen  no  advantage  in  relating  the 

For  further  discussion  of  this  and  the  preceding  section  see  pp.  239-40 . 


48  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

circumstance  of  the  other  boats.  Matthew  substitutes 
the  comparatively  common  word,  tho  I  believe  not  com- 
mon in  exactly  this  connection,  aeLajjLos,  for  Mark's  rare 
word  \a7.\a\p.  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  the  statement 
that  Jesus  was  "asleep  on  the  cushion";  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  they  may  have  considered  the  use  of  the 
cushion  as  an  effeminacy  unworthy  of  Jesus;  or  more  prob- 
ably they  have  omitted  it  as  of  no  consequence.  They 
both  omit  the  direct  address  of  Jesus  to  the  sea,  as  they 
often  omit  his  words  of  address  to  the  demons.  They  do 
not  wish  to  represent  the  disciples  as  distrustful;  so  while 
Mark  says  "Master,  dost  thou  not  care  that  we  perish?" 
Matthew  says  "Save,  Lord;  we  perish,"  and  Luke  simply 
"Master,  we  perish." 

THE  GADARENE  DEMONIAC 
(Mk  V,  1-20;  Mt  viii,  28-34;  Lk  viii,  26-39) 
The  name  of  the  locality  is  different  in  each  account. 
Some  texts,  however,  make  Matthew  agree  with  Mark; 
others  make  him  agree  with  Luke;  while  still  other  texts 
do  the  same  for  Luke  with  reference  to  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew. The  exact  location,  or  the  proper  name  for  it, 
may  have  been  in  dispute.  Matthew  shortens  Mark's 
narrative,  as  almost  invariably.  Luke  shows  himself 
to  be  no  mere  copyist;  in  view  of  Mark's  statement  that 
after  the  demoniac's  cure  they  found  him  "clothed,"  he 
supplies  in  his  original  description  of  the  demoniac  the 
statement  which  Mark  does  not  have,  that  the  man  wore 
no  clothes.  Matthew  and  Luke  again  omit  Jesus'  com- 
mand to  the  demon  to  come  out  of  the  man.  Luke  in- 
cludes Jesus'  question,  "What  is  thy  name?"  But  to 
make  it  plain  that  this  question  is  addressed  to  the  man 
and  not  to  the  demon,  he  changes  Mark's  statement,  "for 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      49 

we  are  many,"  into  his  own  editorial  explanation,  "for 
many  demons  had  entered  into  him."  Matthew  and  Luke 
are  involved  in  a  slight  difficulty  by  their  abbreviation 
of  Mark.  For  while  Mark  makes  those  who  have  seen  the 
cure  of  the  demoniac  tell  their  neighbors  about  him  ''and 
about  the  swine,"  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  this  latter 
item.  It  therefore  appears  from  Matthew  and  Luke  that 
the  Gadarenes  requested  Jesus  to  depart  from  their  coasts 
lest  their  demoniacs  should  be  cured ;  in  Mark  they  asked 
him  to  depart  because  the}^  did  not  wish  their  property 
destroyed.  Luke's  change  of  Mark's  6  KvpLos  (Mk's  vs. 
19)  into  6  deos,  is  not  easily  explained  if  Luke  understood 
Mark  to  refer  to  Jesus  by  his  6  Kvpios.  As  the  latter 
word,  however,  is  ambiguous,  and  as  Mark  seems  to  use 
it  more  often  than  the  other  evangelists  with  reference 
to  God,  Luke  may  have  so  understood  his  narrative  here. 
But  as  the  man  went  and  told,  not  what  God,  but  what 
Jesus,  had  done  for  him,  Luke  can  hardly  have  so  mis- 
understood Mark;  and  Luke's  change  may  be  due  to  his 
feeling  that  Jesus  did  not  call  himself  Kupios.  This 
indeed  seems  to  be  the  only  place  where  Mark  puts  this 
self-designation  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Matthew  and 
Luke  seem  consistently  to  avoid  it. 

THE    DAUGHTER    OF    JAIRUS    AND    THE    WOMAN    WITH    THE 
ISSUE    OF   BLOOD 

(Mk  V,  21-43;  Mt  ix,  18-26;  Lk  viii,  40-56) 
This  curious  insertion  of  one  miracle  within  another 
might  be  held  to  be  enough  in  itself  to  prove  the  literary 
dependence  of  the  three  synoptists.  Luke's  change  of 
Mark's  vs.  23  is  explained  by  the  anacoluthon  in  Mark. 
Matthew  and  Luke  naturally  avoid  Mark's  Bvyarpiov. 
Their  substitution  of  the  "tassel  of  his  garment"  for 


50  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

"his  garment"  is  unusual,  since  it  seems  to  indicate  their 
closer  definition  of  the  kind  of  cloak  worn  by  Jesus. 
The  change  may  serve  to  heighten  the  appearance  of 
reverence  in  the  woman.  Luke  substitutes  Trapaxpw^"- 
for  Mark's  eWvs;  the  latter  is  Mark's  uniform  word  for 
"immediately,"  used  by  him  forty-one  times  against 
Matthew's  eighteen  and  Luke's  seven;  the  former  is 
Luke's  favorite  word,  being  used  ten  times  by  him,  twice 
by  Matthew,  and  never  by  Mark.  Matthew  and  Luke 
omit  the  question  of  the  disciples  to  Jesus,  "Sayest  thou. 
Who  touched  me?"  as  possibly  implying  lack  of  respect 
upon  their  part.  They  also  omit  Mark's  parenthetical 
statement  that  John  was  the  brother  of  James;  this  had 
been  mentioned  often  enough  already.  Luke's  abbrevia- 
tion of  Mark  involves  him  in  the  difficulty  of  saying 
that  Jesus  allowed  nobody  to  go  into  the  house  with  him, 
except  the  three  disciples  and  the  parents  of  the  child, 
whereas  Mark  expressly  says  that  he  allowed  only  those 
to  go  with  him  into  the  death  chamber.  Matthew,  not 
mentioning  the  death  chamber,  has  a  reminiscence  of  it 
in  his  participle  ela-eKdihp,  coming  as  it  does  after  the  eKdo^v 
els  T7}v  oLKLav  of  his  previous  verse.  In  this  story  also 
Luke  has  read  Mark  thru  carefully;  and  finding  that 
Mark  inserts  "she  was  twelve  years  old"  after  the  state- 
ment that  she  arose  and  walked,  prefers  to  put  this  into 
the  more  appropriate  place  as  part  of  the  introductory 
narrative;  he  is  thus  enabled  at  the  same  time  to  make  the 
connection  in  the  latter  part  of  the  story  much  better 
by  saying  that  as  soon  as  the  girl  sat  up  Jesus  commanded 
her  parents  to  give  her  something  to  eat;  a  command 
which  in  Mark  follows  only  after  several  other  items. 
Luke  thus  makes  the  giving  of  food  to  the  girl  a  part  of 
the  means  used  for  her  recovery. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      51 

THE  initial  preaching  IN  NAZARETH 
(Mk  vi,  1-6;  Mt  xiii,  53-58;  Lk  iv,  16-30) 
Luke's  working  over  of  the  account  in  Mk  vi,  1-6,  has 
already  been  considered.^  He  has  preferred  to  put  it  at 
the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry,  as  a  sort  of  introductory 
resume  of  the  reception  which  Jesus  received  at  the  hands 
of  the  Jews,  and  his  consequent  turning  to  the  gentiles. 
The  anachronism  involved  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  Jesus 
says, ''Ye  will  say  to  me,  ....  what  we  have  heard  done 
in  Capernaum  do  also  here  in  thine  own  town";  whereas, 
in  Luke's  own  account  the  wonders  in  Capernaum  have 
not  yet  occurred.  The  words,  "No  prophet  is  accepted 
in  his  own  country,"  do  not  fit  so  well  here  as  where  Mark 
has  them  (vi,  4)  following  upon  the  question,  "Is  not  this 
the  carpenter,  ....  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with 
us?"  and  where  Mark  adds  to  the  word  "country"  the 
words  "  and  among  his  own  kinsmen  and  in  his  own  house." 
Luke  does  not  add  that  Jesus  was  not  able  to  do  many 
wonders  there,  partly  because  he  is  speaking  of  his  preach- 
ing only,  but  still  more  because  he  always  avoids  such 
statements  about  the  inability  or  limitation  of  Jesus. 

the  sending  out  of  the  disciples 
(Mk  vi,  6-13;  Mt  ix,  35;  x,  1,  9-11;  Lk  ix,  1-6) 
Luke  has  a  second  sending  out  of  disciples  in  his 
10th  chapter.  Considering  his  usual  avoidance  of  dupli- 
cates, it  seems  probable  that  he  took  one  of  these  accounts 
from  Mark  and  one  from  Q,  and  that  the  account  therefore 
stood  in  both  Q  and  Mark.  The  account  in  Luke's 
chap.  10  is  closely  akin  to  one  part  of  Matthew's  parallel 
section,  and  his  account  in  his  9th  chapter  is  more  closely 
akin  to  other  verses  of  Matthew's  account.     These  latter 

1  p.  19. 


52  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

verses  of  Matthew  agree  more  closely  with  Mark's  account 
than  do  his  other  verses.  It  seems  clear  therefore  that 
Matthew  has  combined  the  account  of  the  sending  out  of 
the  disciples  which  he  found  in  Q  with  that  which  he 
found  in  Mark.  This  combination  of  material  from  his 
two  sources  is  characteristic  of  him,  as  the  careful  separa- 
tion of  it  is  characteristic  of  Luke.^ 

Comparing  here  the  passages  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
which  were  apparently  taken  from  Mark,  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew correct  the  anacoluthon  of  Mark's  vss.  8  and  9. 
Matthew  and  Mark  mention  the  healing  but  once;  Luke 
three  times.  Mark  says  the  disciples  are  to  take  nothing, 
except  a  staff;  Luke  and  Matthew  say  they  are  to  take 
nothing,  not  even  a  staff.  Mark  seems  to  contemplate  a 
mission  chiefly  to  houses,  not  so  much  to  cities,  tho  his 
word  TOTTOs  may  indicate  the  latter.  The  substitution 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  of  Koi^Lopros  for  Mark's  xovp, 
as  well  as  other  minor  and  verbal  deviations,  may  easily  be 
accounted  for  by  their  acquaintance  with  the  account  in 
Q.  Harnack  suggests  that  Mark's  permission  of  the  staff, 
which  is  denied  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  may  indicate  a 
relaxation  of  the  rule,  arising  in  actual  practice.  If  so, 
Matthew  and  Luke,  because  they  here  follow  Q,  may 
represent  a  more  original  form  of  the  saying.^ 

THE   judgment   OF   HEROD    CONCERNING   JESUS 
(Mk  vi,  14-16;  Mt  xiv,  1-2;  Lk  ix,  7-9) 
Matthew  and  Luke  correct  Mark's  ''Herod  the  king" 
into  "Herod  the  tetrarch,"  tho  Matthew  a  few  verses 

'  Huck's  Synapse,  pp.  80  and  109,  will  show  the  verses  belonging  respec- 
tively to  the  two  sources. 

2  It  is  argued  later,  pp.  234-48,  that  Mark  also  is  dependent  upon  Q,  but 
since  he  has  the  Q  material  in  much  briefer  and  more  fragmentary  form 
than  Matthew  and  Luke,  his  use  of  Q  does  not  preclude  Matthew's  and 
Luke's  preservation  of  more  primary  features  of  the  Q  tradition. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      53 

later  falls  back  into  the  error  which  he  has  corrected. 
Mark  says  that  Herod  himself  surmised  that  Jesus  was 
John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead  (tho  some  texts  read 
eXeyov  for  eXeyev  in  vs.  14).  Matthew  follows  Mark  in 
this  by  saying  distinctly  that  Herod  "said  to  those  about 
him,  it  is  John,"  etc.  Luke  says  Herod  had  heard  of  the 
things  Jesus  did,  "and  was  perplexed  because  it  was  said 
that  John  was  risen."  Luke  may  here  have  been  follow- 
ing one  text  of  Mark  and  Matthew  another  text.  The 
fact  that  with  eXeyev  in  Mark's  vs.  14,  his  vs.  16  is  a  mere 
repetition  of  this  verse  (Matthew  omits  the  parallel  to 
Mark's  vs.  16),  may  indicate  either  that  eXeyov  is  the 
original  reading  of  vs.  14,  or  that  Luke,  finding  eXeyev 
there,  corrected  it  into  his  own  statement  which  upon  the 
face  of  it  is  much  better.  Luke  does  not  represent  Herod 
as  personally  making  any  such  statement  about  John, 
but  says  merely  that  when  Herod  heard  of  the  deeds  of 
Jesus  and  of  the  explanation  that  was  popularly  given  for 
them,  he  desired  to  see  Jesus. 

THE  DEATH  OF  THE  BAPTIST 
(Mk  vi,  17-29;  Mt  xiv,  3-12) 
Luke  has  omitted  this  because  he  has  long  ago  finished 
with  the  Baptist  (in  iii,  19-20).  The  passage  seems  to  be 
parenthetical  in  Mark,  to  explain  Herod's  statement 
that  he  has  killed  John  the  Baptist.  Mark  says  Herod 
did  not  wish  to  kill  John,  because  he  regarded  him  as  a  just 
and  holy  man.  Matthew  says  Herod  wished  to  kill  John, 
but  feared  the  people,  because  theij  considered  John  a 
prophet.  Matthew's  difference  here  may  be  due  to 
a  different  tradition  which  he  considered  superior  to 
Mark's,  or  it  may  be  due  simply  to  the  abbreviation  he  has 
made  in  Mark's  narrative.     Mark's  account  contains  the 


54  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

somewhat  improbable  feature  of  the  daughter  of  He- 
rodias  dancing  before  the  drunken  tetrarch  and  his 
companions;  which  Matthew  omits.  The  Latin  word 
cnreKovKaTocip  in  Mark  (vi,  27)  is  dropped  in  Matthew. 

THE  RETURN   OF  THE  DISCIPLES  AND  THE  FEEDING  OF  THE 

FIVE    THOUSAND 

(Mk  vi,  30-44;  Mt  xiv,  13-21;  Lk  ix,  10-17) 

Matthew  assigns  as  the  reason  for  Jesus'  departure  in 
the  boat  the  news  of  what  had  happened  to  John  the 
Baptist.  Mark,  treating  this  latter  as  purely  paren- 
thetical, says  Jesus  and  his  disciples  went  away  to  escape 
the  crowds.  Luke,  not  having  related  the  death  of  the 
Baptist,  assigns  still  a  different  reason  for  Jesus'  with- 
drawal, saying  that  "the  apostles"  had  returned,  and 
Jesus  went  aside  with  them,  apparently  to  hear  their 
report.  Luke  says  they  retired  to  Bethsaida,  where  it 
seems  out  of  place  that  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand 
should  occur;  this  latter  event  being  more  appropriately 
located  by  Mark  and  Matthew  in  a  "desert  place." 
Mark  and  Matthew  both  say  the  crowds  went  on  foot; 
Mark  says  they  preceded  Jesus,  Matthew  and  Luke,  that 
they  followed  him  when  they  knew  of  his  departure. 
The  deviations  are  easily  accounted  for  by  the  desire  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  to  improve  the  story  of  Mark.  Luke's 
mention  of  Bethsaida  is  accounted  for  by  his  desire  to 
supply  exact  details  wherever  possible;  perhaps  also  by 
the  fact  that  the  second  feeding,  which  he  omits,  was 
related  to  have  occurred  in  that  place.  Luke  is  appar- 
ently unaffected,  in  his  placing  of  the  five  thousand  in 
Bethsaida,  by  the  fact  that  he  represents  Jesus  as  saying, 
"We  are  here  in  a  desert  place."  He  may  also  have 
been  misled  in  his  location  of  the  miracle  by  the  mention. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      55 

in  Mark  vi,  45  (which  Luke  omits),  of  the  departure  of 
Jesus  and  his  disciples  for  Bethsaida.  Luke  trans- 
poses Mark's  statement  of  the  numbers  fed,  to  an  earher 
and  presumably  better  position.  Matthew  adds,  as  in 
the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  that  the  numbers  given 
were  exclusive  of  women  and  children;  apparently  from 
his  desire,  or  the  desire  of  the  tradition  lying  back  of  him, 
to  heighten  the  impressiveness  of  the  miracle.  Mark's 
Hebraism,  avfiiroaia  av/jiiroaLa,  is  omitted  by  both  Mat- 
thew and  Luke. 

THE   WALKING    ON    THE    SEA 
(Mk  vi,  45-52;  Mt  xiv,  22-33) 

Mark's  narrative  seems  to  imply  (vs.  46)  that  Jesus 
''meant  to  walk  past  them."  Matthew  implies,  on  the 
contrary,  that  Jesus  was  coming  to  their  help.  Matthew 
"  spirituahzes "  the  account  by  adding  the  experiment  of 
Peter:  "Peter  can  do  it  so  long  as  he  has  faith. "^  It  has 
been  observed  that  in  this  narrative,  as  in  others  which 
Matthew  takes  from  Mark  but  which  Luke  omits,  the 
verbal  agreement  is  considerably  closer  than  in  the  sec- 
tions which  Matthew  and  Luke  both  copy.  Schmiedel  has 
suggested  that  this  points  to  a  common  document  occa- 
sionally employed  by  Matthew  and  Mark  but  not  by  Luke. 
The  hypothesis  of  a  later  assimilation  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  seems  simpler.  At  all  events,  the  very  close  agree- 
ment of  Matthew  and  Mark  in  this  narrative,  up  to  the 
point  where  Matthew  inserts  the  experiment  of  Peter, 
may  possibly  indicate  that  this  latter  is  later  than  the 
body  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  Whether  so  or  not,  its  pres- 
ence is  easily  accounted  for  by  Matthew's  ecclesiastical 
point  of  view,  the  primacy  of  Peter  being  asserted  by  him 

1  Wellhausen,  Einleitung,  p.  59. 


56  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

in  one  other  notable  passage  which  occurs  in  Matthew 
alone.  Probably  Matthew  has  drawn  these  special  pas- 
sages about  Peter  from  a  source  of  his  own,  and,  according 
to  his  custom,  has  here  combined  one  of  them  with  a 
narrative  of  Mark's. 

the  return  to  gennesaret 
(Mk  vi,  53-56;  Mt  xiv,  34-36) 

This  section  is  omitted  by  Luke.  There  are  no  sayings 
in  it.  Matthew's  customary  abbreviation  is  shown  in  his 
44  words  against  Mark's  72;  but  there  is  much  close 
verbal  correspondence  in  spite  of  this. 

ABOUT  THE  THINGS  THAT  DEFILE 
(Mk  vii,  1-23;  Mt  xv,  1-20) 

Mark  has  an  editorial  comment  about  the  scrupulosity 
of  the  Jews.  It  may  be  a  later  addition  in  his  narrative, 
at  least  this  may  be  the  case  with  the  words  Kal  iravres 
61  'lovbaloL,  which  make  it  apply  to  the  whole  people  and 
not  simply  to  the  Pharisees;  or  it  may  have  seemed  to 
Matthew  to  be  somewhat  exaggerated  and  have  been 
omitted  by  him  on  that  account.  Its  omission  improves 
the  connection  in  Matthew's  narrative,  and  might  be 
sufficiently  accounted  for  by  Matthew's  tendency  to 
omit  superfluous  or  negligible  portions  of  Mark's  stories. 
In  his  vs.  11  (Matthew  has  transposed  several  verses) 
Mark  has  the  Aramaic  word  Kop^av,  omitted  by  Matthew. 
In  Mark's  vs.  19  occurs  the  phrase  Kadapl^cov  iravra  to. 
/3pcb/xara.  The  construction  is  loose,  the  nearest  verb 
with  which  the  participle  can  be  connected  being  the  Xeyei 
of  the  first  part  of  the  preceding  verse.  This  alone  might 
have  induced  Matthew  to  omit  it;  still  more,  the  implica- 
tion, that  Jesus  had  in  this  saying  abolished  the  distinction 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      57 

between  clean  and  unclean.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that 
Matthew  should  omit,  among  Mark's  list  of  the  things 
that  come  out  of  a  man's  heart  and  "defile  him,"  his  men- 
tion of  the  "evil  eye." 

THE    CANAANITISH   WOMAN 

(Mk  vii,  24-30;  Mt  xv,  21-28) 
Matthew  omits  Mark's  statement  that  Jesus  was  not 
able  to  be  hid.  It  may  have  seemed  to  him  an  unworthy 
limitation  of  the  power  of  Jesus.  Mark  also  recounts 
a  clever  answer  of  the  woman,  "The  dogs  under  the  table 
eat  of  the  children's  crumbs";  and  Jesus,  for  the  clever- 
ness of  her  reply,  as  he  says,  grants  her  wish.  It  is  not 
strange  that  Matthew  replaces  this  by  Jesus'  words, 
"Great  is  thy  faith." 

THE  FEEDING  OF  THE  FOUR  THOUSAND 
(Mk  viii,  1-10;  Mt  xv,  32-39) 
Matthew  follows  Mark  closely.  He  seems  in  vss. 
37  and  38  to  be  quoting  from  his  own  account  of  the 
previous  feeding.  This  item  brings  out  a  tendency  of 
Matthew  to  repeat  in  one  place  phrases  which  he  has  used 
in  another. 

THE    DEMAND    FOR   A   SIGN 
(Mk  viii,  11-13;  Mt  xii,  38-39;   Mt  xvi,  1-4;  Lk  xi,  29;  xii,  54-56) 
Doublets  in  both   Matthew  and   Luke   indicate   the 
presence  of  this  section  in  both  Mark  and  Q.^ 

THE  SAYING  ABOUT  YEAST 

(Mk  viii,  14-21;  Mt  xvi,  5-12) 
Matthew  omits  the  rebuke  to  the  disciples  in  Mark 
(viii,  17,  18). .   He  apparently  manufactures  a  saying  of 
Jesus  in  his  vs.  11,  in  order  to  introduce  therewith  his 
own  editorial  statement  of  vs.  12. 

I  For  further  discussion  see  p.  241. 


58  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  confession  of  peter  and  the   first  prediction 

of  sufferings 

(Mk  viii,  27-33;  Mt  xvi,  13-23;  Lk  ix,  18-22) 

Matthew  spoils  the  question  of  Jesus  by  obtruding 
his  own  estimate  of  him  in  the  words  "The  son  of  man"  in 
VS.  13.  Upon  Peter's  answer,  he  adds  Jesus'  words  of  com- 
mendation, and  makes  Jesus  reciprocate  by  telling  Peter 
who  he  (Peter)  is,  and  that  the  church  shall  be  founded 
upon  him.  The  addition  may  be  later  than  Matthew. 
If  not,  it  betrays  the  ecclesiastical  interest,  and  especially 
the  interest  in  the  primacy  of  Peter,  which  comes  out  else- 
where in  Matthew.  Matthew  and  Luke  correct  Mark's 
statement,  "after  three  days  he  shall  rise  again,"  to  "on 
the  third  day,"  so  making  the  prediction  agree  more  accu- 
rately with  the  facts,  and  giving  a  Greek  method  of 
reckoning  instead  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  Luke  omits  the  rebuke  to  Peter;  Matthew's  inclusion 
of  it  seems  strange.  Both  omit  Mark's  statement  that 
"Jesus  spoke  the  word  openly,"  because,  as  Hawkins 
suggests,^  if  this  meant  that  he  spoke  to  the  crowd,  it 
is  contradicted  by  Mark's  vs.  34;  if  it  meant  that  he  told 
them  clearly  about  the  resurrection,  it  would  seem  strange 
that  the  disciples  did  not  understand. 

THE    DEMANDS    OF   DISCIPLESHIP 
(Mk  viii,  34— ix,  1;  Mt  xvi,  24-28;  Lk  ix,  23-27) 

Mark's  redundant  expression  b-wiaoo  aKoXovdelv  is  cor- 
rected by  each  of  the  others,  in  a  different  way.  The 
phrase  /cat  rod  evayyeyiov  in  Mark's  vs.  35  sounds  like  a 
later  addition;  it  would  hardly  have  been  omitted  by 
Matthew  and  Luke    if   it    had    stood    in    their   source. 

•  Horae  Sytiopticae,  p.  123. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      59 

Matthew  makes  Jesus  say  that  "the  son  of  man  is  about 
to  come";  Mark  and  Luke  say  "when  the  son  of  man 
comes";  Matthew  betrays  his  own  attitude,  or  the 
attitude  of  his  time,  to  the  long-expected  parousia. 
Mark's  extremely  awkward  order  of  words,  tlp€s  Side  tcou 
eaTTjKOTcou,^  each  of  the  other  evangelists  corrects  in  his 
own  way. 

THE    TRANSFIGURATION 

(Mk  ix,  2-8;  Mt  xvii,  1-8;  Lk  ix,  28-36) 

Mark  says  "he  was  changed  in  form"  (/xera^op^w^T?) , 
which  Luke  improves  to  "the  appearance  of  his  counte- 
nance was  different"  {to  eldos  rod  irpoaooTov  avrov 
erepov).  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  change  Mark's 
"Elias  and  Moses"  to  the  chronological  order.  Luke 
adds  that  these  spoke  of  the  approaching  entry  of  Jesus 
into  Jerusalem,  and  adduces,  as  an  excuse  for  the  dis- 
ciples' not  understanding,  or  for  Peter's  apparently 
foolish  remark,  that  they  were  heavy  with  sleep. 
Matthew  and  Luke  change  Mark's  Aramaic  pa^jSel  into 
Greek  words,  Luke  using  the  eTrio-rdra  which  is  peculiar 
to  him. 

THE  DISCUSSION  ABOUT  ELIJAH 
(Mk  ix,  9-13;  Mt  xvii,  9-13) 
Mark  says  Elias  has  come  (in  the  person  of  John  the 
Baptist),  and  they  have  done  whatever  they  would  with 
him,  "as  it  was  written  of  him."  Matthew  understands, 
rightly,  that  this  last  is  a  reference  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and  not  knowing  where  or  what  had  there  been  written 
of  the  Baptist,  omits  it.  Perhaps  the  statement  is  a  later 
addition  to  Mark. 

1  A  note  on  this  passage  by  Professor  H.  A.  Sanders  says  that  this  is 
Mark's  order  in  B  D  (li  d  c)  only. 


60  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  healing  of  the  epileptic  boy 
(Mk  ix,  14-29;  Mt  xvii,  14-21;  Lk  ix,  37-43a) 
Mark  says  that  when  the  crowd  saw  Jesus  they  were 
amazed.  This  might  seem  to  be  a  parallel  to  the  amaze- 
ment of  the  Israelites  on  seeing  Moses'  countenance  when 
he  came  down  from  the  mount.  But  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  omitted  it.  They  also  omit  Jesus'  direct  address  to 
the  demon,^  and  Jesus'  statement,  "This  kind  cometh 
not  out  except  with  prayer."  This  may  reflect  the  cus- 
tom in  ecclesiastical  exorcisms,  and  may  have  been  added 
by  a  later  hand,  or  omitted  by  Matthew  and  Luke  because 
as  matter  of  fact  Jesus  had  not  prayed  and  therefore  the 
saying  did  not  fit  the  case. 

THE  SECOND  PREDICTION  OF  SUFFERINGS 
(Mk  ix,  30-32;  Mt  xvii,'22-23;  Lk  ix,  43^^45) 
In  the  second  prediction  of  sufferings  Matthew  and  Luke 
both  avoid  Mark's  ovk  r}dektv  tva  tls  yvol  (Mk  ix,  30).  It 
seems  to  be  a  part  of  Mark's  Geheimnis-Theorie;  but  since 
Matthew  and  Luke  both  include  some  of  Mark's  other 
references  to  this  theory,  this  fact  is  not  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  its  omission,  which  may  perhaps  be 
attributed  to  the  growing  reverence  for  Jesus.  Luke's 
vs.  44a,  deade  u^iets  ets  to.  oira  vfxoiv  tovs  Xoyovs  tovtovs, 
is  without  parallel  in  Mark  (or  Matthew).  Luke  has 
also  omitted  a  part  of  Mark's  prediction,  "and  they  shall 
kill  him,"  which  he  would  hardly  have  done  if  he  were 
here  following  Mark,  or  if  the  clause  had  stood  in  his 
copy  of  Mark.  These  facts  may  be  taken  to  indicate 
that  Luke  is  here  following  another  source.  The  words 
quoted  from  vs.  44a  would  be  very  unlikely  to  be  added  by 
Luke  himself.-     Matthew  seems  to  follow  Mark,  making 

1  Cf.  a  similar  omission  of  the  address  to  the  waves,  p.  48. 

-  See  Bartlet,  "Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,"  Oxford  Studies,  p.  321. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      61 

his  customary  abbreviation  and  changing  Mark's  ''after 
three  days"  to  ''on  the  third  day."  In  another  instance 
already  noticed  both  Matthew  and  Luke  make  the  same 
change  in  Mark's  statement.  Luke  may  here  be  following 
Q.  But  the  absence  of  any  agreements  between  him  and 
Matthew  as  against  Mark  would  rather  indicate  his  use 
of  a  peculiar  source.  There  are  no  doublets  to  substan- 
tiate the  supposition  of  the  use  of  Q. 

THE    STRIFE    ABOUT    RANK 

(Mk  ix,  33-37;  Mt  xviii,  1-5;  Lk  ix,  46-48) 

The  section  on  the  strife  about  rank  probably  stood 

in  both  Mark  and  Q,  but  the  resemblances  are  too  general 

for  one  to  draw  definite  conclusions  as  to  the  exact  source 

relationship. 

MINOR   PASSAGES 

It  will  be  sufficient  if  we  look  with  less  detail  thru  a 
few  more  passages  of  the  triple  tradition,  to  note  the 
changes  made  by  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the  text  of  Mark. 

In  the  case  of  the  unknown  exorcist  (Mk  ix,  38-41; 
Lk  ix,  49-50)  Luke  says  "he  followed  not  with  us"  instead 
of  "he  followed  not  us";  the  assumption  of  authority 
upon  the  part  of  John  is  thereby  lessened. 

In  the  saying  about  offenses  (Mk  ix,  42-48;  Mt  xviii, 
6-9;  Lk  xvii,  1-2)  Matthew  has  combined  Mark's  saying 
about  the  hand  and  his  separate  saying  about  the  foot, 
into  one.  The  saying  stood  in  Mark  and  Q.  In  the  dis- 
cussion about  marriage  and  divorce  (Mk  x,  11-12;  Mt 
V,  31-32;  Lk  xvi,  18;  xix,  9)  Matthew  has  rearranged 
the  order  of  Mark,  and  has  added  "except  for  adultery," 
as  he  has  done  in  another  place;  he  has  omitted  Mark's 
reference  to  the  woman  divorcing  her  husband,  as  this 
would  mean  nothing  to  his  Palestinian  readers. 


62  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

In  the  blessing  of  the  children  (Mk  x,  13-16;  Mt  xix, 
13-15;  Lk  xviii,  15-17)  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  Mark's 
statement  that  Jesus  was  angry. 

In  the  saying  concerning  the  danger  of  riches  (Mk  x, 
17-31;  Mt  xix,  16-30;  Lk  xviii,  18-30)  Mark  makes  Jesus 
say,  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?"  Matthew  changes 
this  to  ''Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is 
good?"  tho  his  following  words,  "There  is  One  who  is 
good,"  betray  the  fact  that  he  had  Mark's  reading  before 
him.  Matthew  shows  his  Jewish  affinities  by  making 
Jesus  say  that  the  questioner  may  "enter  into  life,"  by 
keeping  the  commandments.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke 
omit  one  commandment  which  Mark  quotes,  because  it 
is  not  found  in  the  Decalogue.  Matthew  changes  Mark's 
order  of  the  commandments  to  agree  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Matthew,  having  called  the  questioner  a  youth, 
omits  from  his  reply  to  Jesus  the  words,  "from  my  youth 
up."  Both  omit  Mark's  vs.  24,  which  is  practically  a 
duplicate  of  the  previous  verse.  Luke,  having  included 
the  idea  of  "sisters"  in  his  word  for  family,  omits  sisters, 
but,  with  his  characteristic  interest  in  women,  adds 
"wife." 

In  the  third  prediction  of  sufferings  (Mk  x,  32-34; 
Mt  XX,  17-19;  Lk  xviii,  31-34)  the  agreement  between 
Mark  and  Matthew  is  very  close  throughout.  The  only 
agreement  of  Matthew  and  Luke  against  Mark  is  in  their 
substitution  of  elireu  for  Xeyn.  Both  Matthew  and 
Luke  change  Mark's  "after  three  days"  to  "on  the  third 
day."  Three  words  in  Mark's  vs.  34  are  reproduced 
in  Luke  alone;  auaarrjaeTaL,  dwoKTeuovaLv,  ifj-TTTvaovcnv. 
Matthew  has  added  Kal  (xravpcJaaL. 

In  the  request  for  seats  in  the  kingdom  (Mk  x,  35-45; 
Mt  XX,  20-28)  Mark  makes  James  and  John  ask  Jesus 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      63 

directly;  Luke  omits  the  incident;  Matthew  puts  the 
burden  of  the  ambitious  request  upon  the  mother  instead 
of  upon  the  sons;  tho  he  betrays  the  fact  that  he  is  remak- 
ing Mark,  by  making  Jesus  direct  his  reply  to  the  men. 

In  the  healing  of  Bartimaeus  (Mk  x,  46-52;  Mt  xx, 
29-34;  Lk  xviii,  35^3)  Mark  says  ''the  son  of  Timaeus," 
perhaps  in  explanation  of  the  Aramaic  name.  Matthew 
specifies  two  men  instead  of  one,  giving  no  names;  it 
has  been  suggested  that  he  may  have  been  misled  by 
Mark's  "Bartimaeus"  and  "the  son  of  Timaeus,"  tho 
the  Jewish  affinity  of  Matthew's  Gospel  makes  this 
unhkely.  Since  "the  son  of  Timaeus"  did  not  serve  to 
identify  the  man  to  their  readers,  Matthew  and  Luke 
omit  the  phrase.  Mark's  graphic  statement  that  the  man 
threw  off  his  cloak  and  ran  to  Jesus  was  unsuited  to  the 
dignity  of  the  Later  Gospels.  Matthew  and  Luke  again 
substitute  the  Greek  Kvpie  for  Mark's  pa^^ovA.  They 
omit  his  viraye,  which  seems  out  of  place. ^ 

In  the  preparation  for  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  (Mk 
xi,  1-11;  Mt  xxi,  1-11;  Lk  xix,  28-38)  Mark  represents 
Jesus  as  telling  the  disciples  who  go  after  the  colt,  to 
explain  that  Jesus  has  need  of  him  and  that  he  will  return 
him  soon.  Luke  omits  the  latter  item;  Matthew  changes 
it  to  mean  that  when  the  disciples  have  explained  to  the 
owner  that  Jesus  needs  the  animal,  the  owner  will  quickly 
send  it  to  Jesus.  The  growing  reverence  for  Jesus  easily 
explains  the  change  and  the  omission.  Matthew  undoubt- 
edly represents  Jesus  as  riding  into  Jerusalem  upon  two 
beasts,  the  ass  and  her  foal;  the  strange  phenomenon  is 
explained  by  his  attempt  to  harmonize  the  event  with  an 
Old  Testament  prophecy.     The  prophecy,  however,  for 

>  I  am  unable  to  account  for  Matthew's  addition  that  Jesus  touched 
the  man's  eyes. 


64  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

that  matter,  had  only  one  beast  in  mind.  Mark  says 
Bethany  (in  some  texts  Bethany  and  Bethphage) ,  Matthew 
Bethphage,  and  Luke  Bethany  and  Bethphage;  the  two 
names  in  Luke,  and  in  certain  texts  of  Mark,  are  probably 
to  be  explained  as  the  harmonizing  effort  of  some  copyist. 

Li  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  (Mk  xi,  12-14;  Mt  xxi, 
18-19),  the  statement  of  Mark,  "For  it  was  not  the  time 
for  figs,"  may  have  been  omitted  by  Matthew  because 
seeming  to  imply  an  unreasonable  expectation  on  the  part 
of  Jesus.  Or  it  may  be  a  later  addition  to  Mark.  Mat- 
thew says  that  the  disciples  noticed  "immediately"  that 
the  tree  had  withered,  whereas  Mark  says  they  observed 
this  the  next  day.  Matthew's  change  may  have  been 
in.  the  interest  of  heightening  the  miracle.  Upon  his 
observation  here  he  has  hung  his  statement  about  the 
wonder  of  the  disciples  in  his  vs.  20.  Luke  omits  this 
miracle;  probably  because  he  considers  the  parable  of 
the  Fig  Tree  which  he  gives  in  xxi,  29-31  (taking  it 
from  Mk  xiii,  28-29  =  Mt  xxiv,  32-33)  a  variant  of,  or  an 
improvement  upon,  the  same  story. 

The  speech  about  the  withered  fig  tree  (Mk  xi,  20-25; 
Mt  xxi,  20-22)  Luke  omits  because  he  has  omitted  the 
miracle  upon  which  it  depends.  The  saying  about  faith 
apparently  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q,  since  Matthew 
has  a  doublet  upon  it.  This  may  have  been  an  additional 
reason  for  Luke's  omission  of  it  here,  since  he  has  incor- 
porated it  in  his  xvii,  6.^ 

In  the  question  about  authority  (Mk  xi,  27-33;  Mt  xxi, 
23-27;  Lk  xx,  1-8)  the  intervention  of  the  fig  tree  story 
in  Mark  (and  Matthew)  obscures  the  point  of  the  question 
about  Jesus'  authority,  which  was  directed  toward  his 
action  in  cleansing  the  temple.     There  is  very  close  agree- 

'  See  p.  244  for  further  discussion  of  tlie  saying  as  in  Mark  and  Q. 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      65 

merit  among  the  three  in  the  question  of  Jesus  to  his 
questioners  (Mk  xi,  30;  Mt  xxi,  25;  Lk  xx,  4),  tho  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  avoid  Mark's  anacoluthon  at  the 
beginning  of  the  following  verse. 

In  the  parable  of  the  Evil  Husbandmen  (Mk  xii,  1-12; 
Mt  xxi,  33-46;  Lk  xx,  9-19)  Mark  says,  "They  took  him 
and  killed  him  and  cast  him  out";  Matthew  and  Luke 
say,  "They  cast  him  outside  the  vineyard  and  killed  him," 
presumably  influenced  in  this  correction  by  the  fact  of 
Jesus'  crucifixion  outside  the  city.^  Matthew  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  the  questioners  one  saying  which  Mark 
ascribes  to  Jesus;  the  questioners  are  thus  convicted  by 
their  own  testimony. 

In  the  question  of  the  Sadducees  about  the  resurrection 
(Mk  xii,  18-27;  Mt  xxii,  23-33;  Lk  xx,  27-40)  Mark 
says,  quite  correctly,  "The  Sadducees,  who  (as  is  well 
known)  say  there  is  no  resurrection  ";2  Matthew  not  so 
happily  represents  them  as  making  this  statement  to 
Jesus;  Luke  corrects  still  further,  being  apparently 
unacquainted  with  the  tenets  of  the  Sadducees  as  a  class, 
and  so  says,  "Certain  of  the  Sadducees  came,  denying  that 
there  is  any  resurrection."  It  is  one  of  the  instances, 
perhaps  comparatively  few,  where  Mark  would  better 
have  been  left  as  he  was.  To  make  the  contrast  between 
this  world  and  the  next  stronger  Luke  adds  in  his  vs.  34, 
"the  sons  of  this  world  marry  and  are  given  in  marriage." 
He  also  attempts  to  explain  the  apparently  incomplete 
statement,  "God  is  not  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living," 
by  adding  "for  all  live  to  him."^ 

•No  reason  can  be  given,  so  far  as  I  know,  for  Luke's  addition  of  his 
XX,  18.     Some  texts  ascribe  the  same  saying  to  Matthew  also. 

2 1  think  I  owe  this  suggestion  to  Wernle,  but  do  not  find  tlie  passage 
in  his  Synoptische  Frage. 

3  Bacon  explains  this  saying  of  Mark's  to  mean  that  Jahwe  is  not  a 
god  of  the  underworld,  like  Pluto  (Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story). 


66  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

In  the  question  about  the  great  commandment  (Mk 
xii,  28-34;  Mt  xxii,  34-40;  Lk  x,  25-28),  Matthew's 
addition,  "Upon  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the 
law,  and  the  prophets,"  is  perhaps  an  old  Christian 
formula,  which  seems  to  fit  remarkably  well  in  this  place. 

In  the  question  about  David's  son  (Mk  xii,  35-37; 
Mt  xxii,  41-46;  Lk  xx,  41-44),  Luke  corrects  Mark's 
statement,  "David  said  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  with  "David 
says  in  the  book  of  Psalms";  Mark  is  nearer  to  Jesus, 
Luke  writes  for  the  convenience  of  his  readers  who  might 
wish  to  look  up  the  reference. 

In  the  speech  against  the  Pharisees  (Mk  xii,  38-40; 
Mt  xxiii,  1-7;  Lk  xx,  45-47),  Mark's  "Beware  of  the 
Pharisees,  who  love  to  walk  about  in  robes,  and  greetings 
in  the  market"  is  not  positively  ungrammatical,  since 
the  infinitive  and  the  noun  may  both  be  the  object  of  the 
verb.  But  it  is  a  loose  construction;  Luke  corrects  it  by 
the  insertion  of  a  second  verb  governing  the  noun. 

In  the  predictions  of  distress  (Mk  xiii,  9-13;  Mt  xxiv, 
9-14;  Lk  xxi,  12-19),  Mark's  irponeptnuoiTe,  a  word  not 
found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  or  Septuagint,  is 
avoided  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  Matthew's  passage 
(xxiv,  10-12)  about  the  false  prophets  who  shall  deceive 
many,  and  the  love  of  many  growing  cold,  whether 
attributed  to  the  evangelist,  or  to  the  tradition  lying 
just  behind  him,  reflects  the  conditions  of  his  times. 

In  the  saying  about  the  distress  in  Judaea  (Mk  xiii, 
14-20;  Mt  xxiv,  15-22;  Lk  xxi,  20-24),  Mark's  con- 
struction of  a  neuter  noun  with  a  mascuhne  participle, 
a  construction  according  to  the  sense  {fideXvyixa  .... 
iffTrjKOTa),  his  unusual  construction  of  eis  top  aypbv 
meaning  "in  the  field,"  and  his  equally  strange  combina- 
tion of  words  taovTai  yap  at  17/xepat  iKeivai  dXi^pLs,  o'ia  ov 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      67 

Ye'yoj'ej^  roLavrr],  are  all  replaced  by  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Luke  omits  6  auayivojaKCJu  voelTco,  because  it  is  not 
applicable  to  his  readers.  He  adds  "until  the  times 
of  the  nations  are  fulfilled,"  apparently  upon  Paul's 
hypothesis  that  the  end  could  not  come  till  the  gospel  had 
first  been  preached  to  all  the  nations  (Rom  xi,  11,  15,  31). 
This  is  Luke's  substitute  for  the  explanation  which 
Matthew  has  copied  from  Mark,  that  the  Lord  has 
shortened  the  days  for  the  sake  of  the  Christians.  In 
the  speech  about  the  parousia  (Mk  xiii,  24-27;  Mt 
xxiv,  29-31;  Lk  xxi,  25-28),  Matthew  has  added  evdicos. 
This  is  Mark's  favorite  adverb,  and  its  addition  by 
Matthew  where  it  is  lacking  in  Mark  is  hard  to  under- 
stand. Perhaps,  as  Bacon  says,  Matthew  the  Palestinian 
wishes  to  encourage  the  hope  of  the  speedy  coming  of 
Jesus,  while  Mark  the  Roman  wishes  to  discourage  it; 
but  the  reasons  for  this  are  not  perfectly  clear.  Schmiedel 
considers  the  omission  of  the  eWecjos  in  Mark  as  a  sign 
of  his  secondary  character  at  this  point. 

In  the  passage  about  the  time  of  the  parousia  (Mk  xiii, 
30-32;  Mt  xxiv,  34-36;  Lk  xxi,  32-33),  Luke  omits 
Mark's  statement  that  "the  son"  does  not  know  the 
time;  because  he  always  avoids  any  implication  of  a 
limitation  in  the  knowledge  of  Jesus. ^  In  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  Passover  (Mk  xiv,  12-17;  Mt  xxvi,  17-20: 
Lk  xxii,  7-14),  Luke  omits  the  "my"  in  the  question 
which  Jesus  tells  the  disciples  to  ask,  "Where  is  my 
chamber  where  I  shall,"  etc.;  perhaps,  as  Hawkins- 
suggests,  because  it  may  have  seemed  to  him  a  somewhat 
harshly  expressed  claim. 

1  Luke  (xvii,  34)  wishes  to  suggest  that  the  parousia  may  occur  in  the 

7iight. 

2  Horae  Synopticae,  p.  120. 


68  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

In  the  institution  of  the  Last  Supper  (Mk  xiv,  22-25; 
Mt  xxvi,  26-29;  Lk  xxii,  15-20),  Luke  adds  (xxii,  19-20) 
words  which  seem  to  be  taken  from  Paul's  account  in  I 
Cor.  xi,  25.  Westcott  and  Hort  regard  them  as  inter- 
polated from  that  epistle.  Matthew  adds,  in  his  vs.  28, 
as  he  has  added  in  his  account  of  the  purpose  of  John's 
baptism,  "for  the  remission  of  sins." 

In  the  account  of  Jesus  in  Gethsemane  (Mk  xiv,  32- 
42;  Mt  xxvi,  36-46;  Lk  xxii,  39-46),  Luke's  vss.  43-44 
are  lacking  in  many  manuscripts,  and  are  probably  a  later 
addition.  Luke  and  Matthew,  probably  from  the  growth 
of  the  tradition,  and  from  the  wish  not  to  omit  anything 
from  this  solemn  scene,  represent  Jesus  as  addressing 
Judas,  but  do  not  agree  in  the  words  ascribed  to  him. 

In  the  account  of  the  arrest  (Mk  xiv,  43-54;  Mt  xxvi, 
47-58;  Lk  xxii,  47-55)  Mark  has  the  words  "but  that 
the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled,"  without  attaching  the 
"that"  to  anything.  Matthew  fills  out  his  incomplete 
sentence  by  writing,  "iVll  this  happened  that  the  scrip- 
tures," etc.  Luke  omits  the  flight  of  the  disciples, 
because  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  which  he 
recounts  take  place  in  Jerusalem.  Both  Matthew  and 
Luke  omit  the  reference  to  the  young  man  in  the  linen 
garment,  either  because  they  did  not  understand  it,  or 
knew  it  would  have  no  meaning  for  their  readers,  or  both. 
Mark  says  the  crowd  who  came  to  arrest  Jesus  came  "from 
the  chief  priests";  Luke  has  apparently  overlooked  the 
preposition,  and  so  represents  the  chief  priests  themselves 
as  taking  part  in  the  arrest. 

To  Mark's  mocking  "Prophesy!"  addressed  to  the 
blindfolded  Jesus  by  the  soldiers,  Luke  and  Matthew 
add  the  words,  clearly  explanatory,  "Who  is  he  that 
struck  thee?" 


Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      69 

In  the  denial  of  Peter  (Mk  xiv,  66-72;  Mt  xxvi, 
69-75;  Lk  xxii,  56-62),  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  two 
obscure  and  strange  words  of  Mark,  -wpoavKLov  in  vs.  68 
and  eTTilSaKoju  in  vs.  72.  Li  the  treatment  of  Jesus  by- 
Pilate,  Luke  adds  the  charge  that  Jesus  had  stirred  up  the 
people  not  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar;  it  is  probably  a 
reflection  of  the  anarchistic  charges  made  against  Chris- 
tians in  Luke's  time.  Matthew's  addition  of  Pilate's 
hand-washing  is  probably  due  to  his  desire,  or  the  desire  of 
the  tradition  back  of  him,  to  relieve  the  Roman  authorities 
of  responsibility  for  the  death  of  Jesus. 

In  the  story  of  the  journey  to  the  crucifixion  (Mk  xv, 
21;  Mt  xxvii,  32;  Lk  xxiii,  26-32),  the  omission  of  the 
names  of  Rufus  and  Alexander  is  probably  due  (as  already 
said)  to  the  fact  that  these  men  were  unknown  to  Matthew 
and  Luke  and  their  readers,  and  added  no  weight  to  the 
testimony  of  Simon  their  father.  Luke's  extremely 
vivid  touch  of  Jesus'  address  to  the  "Daughters  of  Jerusa- 
lem" can  be  explained  only  as  a  part  of  his  special  material 
for  this  portion  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

In  the  story  of  the  crucifixion  (Mk  xv,  22-32;  Mt  xxvii, 
33-44;  Lk  xxiii,  33-43),  Luke's  words,  "Father  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do,"  are  omitted  in 
many  manuscripts,  are  bracketed  by  Westcott  and  Hort, 
and  are  probably  a  later  addition.  Matthew  corrects 
Mark,  who  says  a  man  came  with  a  sponge,  saying,  "Let 
him  be,"  etc.;  Matthew  makes  the  crowd  address  the 
"Let  him  be"  to  the  man  with  the  sponge. 

Luke  apparently  differs  much  more  than  Matthew, 
from  Mark,  in  his  story  of  the  crucifixion,  and  the  events 
that  led  up  to  and  followed  it.  This  can  be  explained  by 
his  possession  of  special  sources  for  these  last  days  of 
Jesus,  and  his  desire  to  use  material  from  these  sources 


70  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

with  his  Marcan  matter.  Transpositions  are  especially 
frequent. 

In  his  xxii,  18,  e.g.,  Luke  makes  a  transposition  of  Mk 
xiv,  25.  This  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  his  procedure 
throughout  these  sections.  Mark  gives  the  reference  to 
the  approaching  betrayal  before  the  institution  of  the 
Supper;  Luke,  after  that  institution.  Mark  places  the 
prediction  of  the  denial  of  Peter  after  Peter  has  left  the 
room;  Luke,  before  his  leaving.  Similar  transpositions 
are  made  in  the  story  of  the  rending  of  the  veil.  In  all, 
Luke  makes  some  twelve  or  thirteen  such  transpositions 
in  Mark's  passion  narrative.  Matthew  follows  Mark 
closely,  both  in  matter  and  in  wording. 

Comparing  Luke's  use  of  Mark  in  the  other  parts  of 
his  Gospel  with  his  use  of  him  in  these  last  sections, 
Hawkins^  finds  that  "the  verbal  correspondence  with  the 
Marcan  source  is  about  twice  as  great  in  the  Lucan  account 
of  the  ministry  as  in  the  Lucan  account  of  the  passion." 
The  amount  of  actually  new  material  in  Luke's  passion 
section  is  about  three  times  as  great  as  the  amount  of  new 
material  which  Luke  introduces  into  any  other  corre- 
spondingly large  section  of  Marcan  narrative. 

SUMMARY  ON   MATTHEW's  AND   LUKE's  TREATMENT  OF  THE 
MARCAN    NARRATIVE 

The  manner  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  treated 
the  Gospel  of  Mark  has  been  brought  out  in  the  concrete 
and  detailed  examples  that  have  been  considered.  No 
single  motive,  especially  no  one  so-called  "tendency" 
of  either  writer  explains  all  his  modifications  of  his 
Marcan  source.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  omitted  what 
seemed  to  them  superfluous,  as  well  as  whatever  appeared 

'  See  his  study,  from  which  tiiese  statements  are  abridged,  in  Oxford 
Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  76—77. 


Changes  of  ^Matthew  and  Luke  in  Mark      71 

to  them  to  conflict  with  the  higher  veneration  for  Jesus 
which  had  developed  in  their  times.  Luke  especially 
omitted  what  would  have  no  significance  or  interest  for 
his  Greek  readers — disputes  with  the  Pharisees,  questions 
of  Jewish  law,  and  other  Judaistic  features.  Both 
^Matthew  and  Luke  treated  the  actual  words  of  Jesus, 
as  recorded  in  ]Mark,  with  great  respect.  But  the  narra- 
tive, and  in  a  less  degree  the  parables,  they  felt  free  to 
work  over  as  they  would.  Matthew  shows  much  greater 
fidehty  to  his  source  than  Luke.  But  both  of  them  recon- 
structed sentences  or  whole  stories,  changed  bad  con- 
structions into  good  ones,  added  what  material  they 
would,  ^Matthew  combining  this  with  his  ]\Iarcan  material 
while  Luke  kept  it  for  the  most  part  distinct.  Xot  every 
change  which  they  made  suggests  its  explanation  to  us, 
and  we  cannot  be  certain  that  in  most  of  them  we  have 
the  actual  motive  operating  in  the  mind  of  the  evangehst. 
But  the  method  of  their  procedure,  the  kind  of  motives 
that  influenced  them,  the  degree  of  freedom  which  the}^ 
took  in  the  re-working  of  their  material  from  ]\Iark,  and 
their  habits  with  reference  to  the  relation  of  this  IMarcan 
material  to  the  other  matter  which  they  wished  to  combine 
with  it,  have  been  sufficiently  established.^ 

1  The  fact  that  Matthew  agrees  much  more  closely  with  Mark,  in  those 
sections  which  are  omitted  by  Luke,  is  a  somewhat  curious  one,  for  which  I 
have  seen  no  sufQcient  explanation  offered.  A  possible  explanation  might 
be  that  in  these  sections  no  opportunity  was  offered  to  later  copjists  to 
assimilate  the  texts  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  thus  introduce  fiu-ther 
changes  from  ]Mark.  If  the  extent  of  such  assimilation  could  be  proved  to 
be  great  enough,  this  explanation  would  perhaps  be  suflBcient. 


CHAPTER  V 

HAVE  WE  THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK  IN  ITS  ORIGINAL 
FORM? 

The  number  of  instances  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
agree  in  their  changes  of  Mark  has  given  rise  to  the 
theory  that  Matthew  and  Luke  did  not  use  our  Mark  but 
an  earlier  form.  A  certain  number  of  such  agreements 
might  be  passed  over  as  merely  accidental.  A  certain 
number  more  might  be  assigned  to  assimilation.  But 
if  the  agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  their  cor- 
rections of  Mark  are  so  numerous  and  so  striking  as  to  be 
quite  beyond  accounting  for  in  these  ways,  the  assumption 
would  be  justified  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used,  not  our 
copy  of  Mark,  but  one  in  which  the  text  ran  as  it  now 
does  in  those  passages  where  Matthew  and  Luke  agree 
against  Mark. 

There  are  some  indications  that  we  do  not  have  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  in  its  original  form.  The  conclusion  is 
lacking.  This  however  throws  no  light  on  an  Ur-Marcus, 
since  the  conclusion  was  lacking  in  the  Mark  used  by 
Matthew  and  Luke.^ 

There  are  many  signs  of  apparent  transposition  in  our 
Mark.  The  insertion  of  one  miracle  into  the  midst  of 
another,  as  in  the  case  of  Jairus'  daughter  and  the  woman 
with  the  issue  of  blood  (v,  21-43),  might  be  held  to  be  such 
a  transposition.  The  incident  of  the  Beelzebul  dispute 
(iii,  20-30)  is  inserted  between  the  coming  of  the  family  of 

I  See  Goodspeed  on  "The  Original  Conclusion  of  Mark's  Ciospel,"  in 
American  Journal  of  Theology,  Vol.  IX  (1905),  pp.  484-90;  also,  Rordam, 
Hibbert  Journal,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  769-90,  "What  Was  the  Lost  End  of  the 
Gospel  of  Mark?"  \ 

72 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        73 

Jesus  (iii,  21)  to  take  him  home  with  them,  and  Jesus' 
statement  (iii,  31-35),  which  is  the  sequel  of  their  com- 
ing, about  his  true  brotherhood.  The  speech  about  the 
cursing  of  the  fig  tree  (xi,  20-26)  intervenes  between  the 
cleansing  of  the  temple  (xi,  15-19)  and  the  demand  of  the 
scribes  (xi,  27-33)  as  to  the  authority  by  which  Jesus  has 
done  so  unwonted  a  thing.  After  this  question  about 
authority,  and  before  Jesus'  reply  to  it,  or  before  the 
description  of  the  discomfiture  of  the  scribes  at  the  reply, 
seriously  interrupting  the  connection,  comes  the  parable  of 
the  Wicked  Husbandmen.^ 

After  the  story  of  the  transfiguration  the  prediction 
of  Jesus'  sufferings  comes  in  between  the  Scribes'  question 
about  Elijah  and  Jesus'  answer  to  that  question  (Mk 
ix,  11-13).  Loisy  thinks  Mk  xiv,  28,  out  of  place.  It 
certainly  disturbs  the  connection.  Jiilicher  considers 
Mk  xiv,  25,  to  be  later  and  less  original  than  its  parallel 
in  Mt  xxvi,  29.  The  saying  in  xiv,  9,  about  the  name 
of  the  woman  being  known  wherever  the  story  of  Jesus 
is  told  has  been  suggested  as  the  remark  of  some  preacher 
or  commentator  a  propos  of  the  occurrence,  and  not  a 
saying  of  Jesus.  Wellhausen  has  even  suggested  that 
the  whole  story  in  xiv,  3-9,  may  be  a  later  addition. 
The  saying,  "Ye  shall  say  to  this  mountain"  (xi,  23) 
should  probably  be  placed  in  Galilee,  presumably  at 
Capernaum,  where  with  a  wave  of  his  hand  Jesus  could 
point  to  both  mountain  and  sea — not  in  Jerusalem  where 
Mark  gives  it.  Schmiedel  considers  Mk  xiv,  58,  secondary. 
It  has  been  argued,  or  almost  assumed,  that  the  second 
feeding  of  the  multitude  could  not  have  been  written  bj'^ 
the  same  hand  that  described  the  first,  nor  the  events 
narrated  in  the  first  thirty -four  verses  of  chap,  iv  have  been 

1  See  Wellhausen.  Einleitung,  p.  56;    Loisy,  Gospel  and  Church,  p.  29.     . 


74  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

written  in  their  present  order.  If  one  is  at  liberty  to 
subtract  what  he  will  from  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  to 
rearrange  its  parts  somewhat,  he  can  undoubtedly  make 
a  much  more  readable  and  better  arranged  Gospel  of  it 
than  it  now  is. 

DISCUSSION    OF    THE    ANALYSIS     OF    MARK    BY    WENDLING 
AND    VON    SODEN 

Two  attempts  have  recently  been  made  to  resolve 
our  Gospel  of  Mark  into  its  constituent  elements,  which 
are  sufficiently  successful  to  be  noticed  here.  The  first 
is  that  of  von  Soden,  in  his  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen  im 
Leben  Jesu,  and  the  second  Wendling's  Ur-Marcus} 

Von  Soden^  begins  by  distinguishing  two  strands  of 
narrative,  easily  separable  from  each  other  by  matter  and 
style.  The  great  differences  between  these  two  strands 
betray  two  different  authors.  As  the  clearest  instance  of 
the  earlier  strand,  he  takes  Mk  ii,  1 — ^iii,  6,  which  he  con- 
trasts with  iv,  35 — V,  43.  In  the  first,  all  the  interest  is 
centered  in  the  words  of  Jesus;  in  the  second,  in  the  events 
themselves.  "  Let  one  compare  the  story  of  the  Gadarene 
demoniac  with  its  twenty  verses  and  the  debate  about 
fasting  with  its  five  verses,  and  estimate  the  weight  of  the 
religious  value  of  the  thots  expressed  in  the  two  sections." 

Von  Soden  next  separates  Mk  vii,  32-37,  and  viii,  22-26 
(the  healing  of  the  deaf  man  and  the  blind  man),  as  quite 
distinct  in  character  from  such  stories  as  those  in  ii,  1-12, 
and  iii,  1-6.  *'In  the  former,  the  miracle  of  heaUng  is 
itself  the  subject  of  the  representation;  in  the  latter,  the 
miracle  is  merely  a  part  of  the  story,  whose  real  subject 
is  Jesus'  forgiveness  of  sins  and  his  violation  of  the  Sabbath 
laws." 

'  This  study  of  von  Soden's  and  Wendling's  treatment  of  Mark  appeared 
in  the   Harvard   Theological   Review  for  April,   1913. 
2  P.  23. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        75 

In  this  way  von  Soden  picks  out  his  Kernstucke.  To 
these  Kernstucke  certainly  belong  the  group  of  narratives 
in  i,  21-39;  ii,  1— iii,  6;  xii,  13^4;  iii,  20-35;  vi,  1-6;  iv, 
1-8;  iv,  26-32;  and  x,  13-31;  perhaps  also  vii,  24-30; 
vi,  14-16;  i,  4-11.  To  these  narratives  which  go  back  to 
Peter  may  also  belong  the  brief  notices  concerning  the 
stages  of  growth  of  the  apostolic  circle,  in  i,  16-20;  iii, 
13-19;  vi,  7-13;  viii,  27— ix,  1;  and  ix,  33^0.i  To 
these  passages  von  Soden  adds  xiii,  1-6,  28-37.  He  says 
that  at  the  basis  of  the  story  of  the  days  in  Jerusalem,  xi, 
1 — ^xii,  12,  and  the  passion  narrative  in  chaps,  xiv  and  xv, 
lie  narratives  of  a  similar  style;  but  these  latter  he  does 
not  include  in  his  Kernstucke. 

Von  Soden  then  prints  the  passages  which  he  thus  refers 
to  Peter  (or  the  Petrine  tradition),  "undisturbed  by  all 
that  our  Gospel  of  Mark  has  interwoven  with  them."- 
The  result  presents  the  Petrine  nucleus  of  the  Gospel  as 
follows:  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Baptism  of  Jesus; 
a  Sabbath  in  Capernaum;  the  offense  of  the  Jews  at 
Jesus'  forgiving  of  sins,  his  association  with  sinners,  his 
breaking  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  fact  that  his  disciples 
do  not  fast;  how  the  Jews  attempt  to  take  him;  how 
Jesus  meets  the  general  misunderstanding;  parables 
about  the  kingdom  of  God;  the  question  as  to  who  shall 
enter  that  kingdom;  the  development  of  the  apostolic 
circle;   glimpses  into  the  future. 

This  makes  (with  the  readjustment  in  the  order  of  some 
of  the  sections)  a  remarkably  straightforward  and  con- 
nected narrative.  Von  Soden's  remarks  concerning  it  are 
well  worth  quoting: 

These  narratives  are  without  any  embellishment  or  secondary 
interest.     They  are  plastic  and  concrete  in  every  feature.     The 

1  p.  24. 

2  For  reasons  which  he  does  not  explain,  he  rearranges  the  sections. 


76  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

local  coloring  is  strikingly  fresh  and  j^et  in  no  way  artificial.  No 
edificatory  remarks  are  inserted,  no  reflections,  only  deeds  and 
striking  sayings.  No  story  requires  its  secret  meaning  to  be 
explained  by  sjonbol  or  allegory.  In  no  one  of  them  does  one 
feel  any  occasion  to  inquire  for  the  meaning,  which  lies  clear  upon 
the  surface.  Situations  and  words  are  too  original  to  have  been 
invented.  Everything  breathes  the  odor  of  Palestine.  There 
is  no  reminiscence  of  Old  Testament  stories.     Miracles  appear 

only  here  and  there,  and  incidentally The  christological 

or  soteriological  question  never  constitutes  the  motive  of  a  story. 
Not  once  is  there  any  expression  from  the  language  of  the  schools, 
especially  from  that  of  Paul.  Words  and  sentences  are  reminis- 
cent of  the  Aramaic.  The  figure  of  Jesus  itself  bears  in  every 
reference  a  human  outline.  He  is  stirred  and  astonished,  he 
is  angry  and  trembles,  he  needs  recuperation  and  feels  himself 
forsaken  of  God,  he  will  not  have  the  thotless,  conventional  desig- 
nation "good"  addressed  to  him,  and  confesses  that  he  does  not 
know  when  all  which  he  sees  to  be  approaching  shall  be  fulfilled. 
His  mother  and  his  sisters  fear  that  he  may  be  out  of  his  mind. 
This  and  much  else  is  told  with  the  greatest  naivete.  So  Jesus 
lived;  so  he  expressed  himself;  thus  they  received  him;  thus 
the  apostolic  circle  was  formed  and  developed — this  is  what  the 
writer  intends  to  tell.' 

These  sections  of  Mark  certainly  have  a  very  primary 
character;  so  far  as  their  contents  is  concerned,  they 
may  well  go  back  to  the  Petrine  tradition. 

With  these  sections  von  Soden  contrasts  the  remaining 
parts  of  the  Gospel,  in  which  he  finds  not  only  much 
interruption  of  the  primary  narrative,  but  much  inter- 
pretation, much  allegorizing,  much  absence  of  actual 
situations,  much  reminiscence  of  Old  Testament  stories, 
much  influence  from  Paul,  and  many  reflections  of  the 
experiences  of  individual  Christians  and  the  Christian 
church  .2     No  one  can  work  thru  this  analysis  of  von 

1  Von  Soden,  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen,  pp.  38,  39. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  39,  40. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        77 

Soden's  without  feeling  tliat  it  is  easy  to  distinguish 
between  primary  and  secondary  elements  in  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  and  that  von  Soden  has  at  least  pointed  out  many 
of  the  junctures  between  these  two. 

_,The  attempt  of  Wendling  in  his  Ur-Marcus^  is  still 
more  thorogoing.  The  basis  of  his  discussion  is  Mark's 
4th  chapter,  where  he  considers  the  two  strands  most 
easily  separated.  To  the  original  belong  iv,  1-9,  and 
vss.  26-33.  Vss.  10-25  are  later;  they  have  been  inserted 
mechanically,  yet  so  as  to  respect  the  older  text;  they 
have  no  organic  connection  with  the  rest  of  the  chapter, 
and  even  contradict  its  situation.  Jesus  is  teaching  from 
a  boat  (and  other  boats  are  with  his) ;  then  suddenly,  in 
vss.  10-25,  he  is  alone  with  his  disciples  who  ask  him  the 
meaning  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower.  He  gives  his 
explanation,  and  again  without  any  indication  of  change 
of  situation  he  is  in  the  boat  surrounded  by  the  other  boats, 
with  the  people  still  on  the  shore,  and  the  storm  comes 
up  and  is  stilled. 

This  little  insertion  (iv,  10-25)  also  contains  theories 
of  the  writer,  quite  contradictory  to  those  of  the  writer 
of  other  parts  of  the  Gospel.  In  other  places,  Jesus 
speaks  to  all  the  people  in  parables  "as  they  were  able  to 
hear  him";  he  stretches  out  his  hand  over  the  multitude 
of  his  disciples  and  says,  "These  are  my  mother  and 
my  sisters";  he  is  the  teacher  of  the  crowd,  who  under- 
stand him  better  than  his  own  family;  there  is  nothing  in 
his  parables  that  needs  explaining.  But  in  this  insertion 
(iv,  10-25)  the  theory  of  the  writer  is  that  the  parables 
are  "mysteries,"  enigmas,  which  not  only  need  to  be 
explained  (by  the  allegorical  method),  but  which  are 
spoken  for  the  express  purpose  of  preventing  the  people 

'  And  still  more  In  his  Entstehung,  too  elaborate  to  be  here  considered. 


78  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

from  understanding.  Without  the  key  which  Jesus  gives, 
even  the  disciples  do  not  understand  them.  The  section 
is  also  marked  by  Pauline  influences.^ 

Two  clews  are  thus  given,  aside  from  interruptions  in 
the  narrative,  by  which  the  work  of  a  second  writer  may 
be  detected.  He  has  the  Geheimnis-Theorie  of  the 
parables,  and  he  has  in  thot  and  vocabulary  reminiscences 
of  the  Pauline  school.  Applying  these  tests  to  another 
section  which  seems  to  interrupt  the  narrative  where  it 
stands,  Wendling  adds  a  second  insertion — iii,  22-30. 
This  is  the  section  about  the  dispute  with  the  Pharisees, 
which  comes  in  inaptly  between  the  introduction  (iii, 
20,  21)  and  the  continuation  (iii,  31)  of  the  story  of 
Jesus'  family  who  have  come  to  take  him  home.  It 
seems  to  have  been  inserted  in  this  place  because  the 
Pharisees  also  said  "he  hath  a  devil."  By  repeating  in 
vs.  30  the  eXeyov  otl  which  he  found  in  vs.  21,  the 
redactor  preserves  for  the  continuation  of  the  original 
story  precisely  the  same  connection  it  would  have  had 
without  his  interpolation;  and  by  the  use  of  the  same  words 
in  vs.  22  he  connects  the  interpolation  with  the  opening 
narrative.  His  hand  is  seen  in  the  superfluous  repetition 
of  words,  especially  of  the  subject,  as  in  iii,  24,  25.^ 

To  these  two  insertions  should  be  added  a  third,  iii, 
6-19.  The  motives  for  it  seem  to  be  copied  from  narra- 
tives in  other  chapters.  It  consists  (in  part)  of  generaliza- 
tion and  interpretation,  both  marks  of  the  redactor's 
work.     It  also  contains  his  Geheimnis-Theorie. 

To  these  should  be  added  i,  346  ("he  suffered  not  the 
demons  to  speak,  because  they  knew  him"),  because  of 

1  Cf.  especially   the  words  /u.uo-TJJptoi',   fiera  x^pa?  Aa^t/Sai-tii',  Siiuy/iibs,  «fft9u- 

fiiot,  KapTro<t)opeli',  and  see  Wendling,  p.  35,  n.  11. 
'  Cf .  ii,  20,  also  the  work  of  the  redactor. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        79 

the  presence  in  it  of  this  same  theory.  Nor  does  i,  45, 
fit  where  it  is;  the  connection  without  it  is  good;  it  also 
contains  the  favorite  theory  of  the  redactor  that  the 
more  Jesus  told  people  not  to  proclaim  him,  the  more 
they  did  so,  and  the  more  he  tried  to  seclude  himself  the 
more  they  found  him. 

To  these  again,  on  somewhat  other  grounds  and  not  so 
securely,  should  be  added  the  little  groups  of  loosely 
strung  logia  which  are  found  in  vi,  7-11;  viii,  34 — ^ix,  1; 
ix,  40-50;  x,  42-45;  xi,  23-25;  xii,  38-40;  xiii,  9-13. 
The  ground  for  asserting  these  to  be  additions  is  that  these 
logia  are  not  closely  connected  in  the  passages  in  which 
they  occur,  and  that  they  share  this  characteristic  with 
the  similar  group  of  disconnected  sayings  in  the  first  and 
best  attested  interpolation,  iv,  21-25. 

In  i,  1-3,  146,  15,  the  word  evayyeXiov  arouses  a 
natural  suspicion.  The  same  word  also  occurs  in  four 
other  places  (viii,  35;  x,  29;  xiii,  10;  xiv,  9),  all  of  which 
are  in  passages  which  are  suspicious  upon  other  grounds; 
consequently  with  the  three  instances  in  chap,  i,  thej-  are 
ascribed  to  the  redactor. 

With  the  exception  of  the  interpolation  in  iv,  10-25, 
the  section  i,  16 — iv,  33,  appears  to  be  a  unit,  and  belongs 
to  the  oldest  stratum.  But  with  iv,  35,  says  Wendling, 
begins  a  new  section,  easily  distinguished  from  that  just 
mentioned.  It  copies  the  motives  and  the  characteristics 
of  other  sections.^  The  writer  is  to  be  distinguished, 
however,  not  merely  from  the  writer  of  the  earliest 
stratum,  but  from  the  author  of  the  insertions  already 
identified.  None  of  the  criteria  of  the  latter's  manner 
appear   in   the   section  beginning  at  iv,  35.     It   shows 

'Cf.  especially  v,  2  with  i,  23;  v,  6,  7,  witli  i,  24;  v,  8-13,  with  i,  25; 
V,  13,  with  i,  26;  v,  14-17,  with  i,  27,  and  see  Wendling,  p.  11. 


80  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

no  trace  of  Pauline  conceptions,  has  none  of  Jesus'  pro- 
hibitions to  the  demons,  its  Heimlichkeit  is  of  a  different 
sort,  and  goes  back  to  Old  Testament  exemplars.  And 
since  the  insertion  in  iv,  10-25,  presupposes  the  story  of 
the  storm  on  the  lake  in  iv,  35 — v,  43,  this  latter  is  older 
than  the  former.  The  writer  of  this  section  (iv,  35 — 
V,  43)  therefore  stood  between  the  writer  of  the  original 
strand,  and  the  evangelist  or  redactor.  The  last  writer 
(Wendling  calls  him  Ev)  worked  over  the  combined  work 
of  his  two  predecessors. 

To  the  author  who  is  intermediate  between  the  first 
writer  and  the  Evangelist,  Wendling  assigns  twenty- 
nine  different  sections,  some  of  considerable  length  and 
some  of  only  a  verse  or  part  of  a  verse.  They  are  as 
follows:  i,  4-14a;  iv,  35— v,  42;  v,  436;  vi,  14,  17-30, 
35-44;  ix,  2-8,  14-27;  x,  46— xi,  10;  xiv,  12-20,  26-35a, 
36-37,  39-41a,  42,  47,  51-56,  60-62a,  63,  64,  66-72;  xv, 
16-20,  23,  246,  25,  29-30,  33,  346-36,  38,  40-43,  46— xvi, 
7a,  8 — about  two  hundred  verses  or  parts  of  verses  in  all. 

The  contributions  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel  are  more 
extensive  than  those  of  his  predecessor.  They  comprise 
i,  1-3,  146-15,  346,  396,  45;  ii,  156-16a,  18a,  196-20;  iii, 
6-19,  22-30;  iv,  10-25,  30-32,  34;  v,  43a;  vi,  1-13,  15, 
16,  30-31,  45— viii,  26,  306-33a,  33c-35,  38— ix,  1,  9-13, 
28-50;  X,  2-12,  24,  26-30,  326-34,  38-40,  45;  xi,  11-14, 
18-25,  27a;  xii,  146,  32-34a,  38-44;  xiii,  3-27,  30-32,  37; 
xiv,  8,  9,  21,  356,  38,  416,  57-59,  626;  xv,  39,  44,  45;  xvi, 
76,  in  all  about  two  hundred  and  seventy  verses  or  parts 
of  verses. 

This  leaves  to  the  original  writer  the  following  sections : 
i,  16-34a,  35-39a,  40-44;  ii,  l-15a,  166-17,  186,  19a,  21— 
iii,  5,  20,  21,  31— iv,  9,  26-29,  33;  vi,  32-34;  viii,  27-30a, 
336,  36,  3t;    x,  1,  13-23,  25,  31-32a,  35-37,  41-44;    xi, 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        81 

15-17,  276— xii,  14a,  14c-31,  346-37;  xiii,  1-2,  28-29, 
33-36;  xiv,  1-7,  10,  11,  22-25,  43-46,  48-50,  65;  xv,  1-15, 
21,  22,  24a,  26-27,  31-32,  34a,  37,  in  all  about  two  hundred 
and  twelve  verses  or  parts  of  verses.^ 

Wendling  calls  the  writers  of  these  three  strands  Ml, 
M2,  and  Ev.  Printing  the  text  of  Ml  and  M2  without 
rearrangement,  but  with  the  omission  of  all  matter 
assigned  to  Ev,  he  finds  them  to  make  a  continuous  story, 
well  connected  and  without  breaks.  Whether  Ml  alone 
makes  such  a  story,  he  is  in  doubt;  and  therefore  as  to 
whether  M2  found  Ml  as  a  connected  discourse,  or  him- 
self first  assembled  the  sections  of  it  in  connection  with 
his  own  additions,  the  same  doubt  exists.  The  passion- 
story  of  Ml  by  itself  seems  to  be  a  connected  account; 
it  may  therefore  be  assumed  that  so  much  of  Ml  was 
found  by  M2  as  a  whole  and  in  its  present  order.  Further, 
since  the  work  of  Ev  in  the  passion-story  is  so  slight,  it  is 
to  be  assumed  that  the  combination  of  Ml  and  M2  in  this 
story  was  more  carefully  done  than  in  many  other  parts, 
and  also  that  for  this  part  of  the  gospel  history  Ev  pos- 
sessed very  few  traditions  which  had  not  already  been  em- 
bodied in  M1+M2.  This  would  agree  with  the  natural 
assumption  that  the  earliest  part  of  the  gospel  tradition 
to  be  carefully  treasured  would  be  that  relating  to  Jesus' 
death,  and  that  it  was  onh^  later  that  the  attempt  was 
made  to  preserve  with  equal  care  the  story  of  his  whole 
public  career. 

When  one  remembers  the  fine-spun  analyses  of  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which,  long  ridi- 
culed for  their  elaborateness,  have  finally  been  accepted 

'  In  Die  Entstehung  des  Marcus-Evangeliums,  p.  204,  Wendling  arranges 
the  verses  from  Ml  in  chaps,  xiii  and  xiv  as  follows:  xiii,  1-2,  33,  28-29, 
34-36;  xiv,  1-2,  10-11,  3-7,  22-25,  43-46,  48-50,  65.  Some  minor  differ- 
ences in  analysis,  affecting  words  or  clauses,  are  registered  ibid.,  p.  237. 


82  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

by  most  scholars,  one  hesitates  on  this  account  alone  to 
pronounce  an  adverse  judgment  upon  Wendling's  theory. 
Yet  his  analysis  certainly  seems  over-elaborate.  It  is  a 
great  advantage  to  be  able  to  distinguish  the  more 
obvious  work  of  the  redactor  from  the  earlier  document 
upon  which  he  worked.  All  students  will  feel  this  with 
reference  to  chap,  iv,  and  the  advantage  in  chap,  iii  is 
perhaps  only  less  great.  Still  more  welcome  is  the 
assignment  of  vi,  45 — viii,  27,  to  the  redactor.  The  great 
stumbhng-block  of  this  section  is  its  feeding  of  the  four 
thousand,  so  obviously  copied  from  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand.  That  one  and  the  same  author  should 
have  written  both  these  accounts  has  seemed  strange 
to  many  readers.  But  this  duplication  is  as  easily  dis- 
posed of  upon  von  Soden's  theory  as  upon  Wendling's. 
Von  Soden's  analysis  into  two  strata  (without  the  assump- 
tion of  two  writers)  is  much  simpler  than  Wendling's 
analysis  into  three,  with  three  writers.  Wendling's  theory 
is  more  secure  where  it  goes  with  von  Soden's,  and  less 
convincing  where  it  goes  beyond  it. 

Some  distinction  has  in  any  case  to  be  made  between 
the  final  writer  of  the  Gospel  and  the  earliest  tradition 
upon  which  he  worked;  and  Wendling  has  indicated  the 
criteria  which  such  a  distinction  must  employ.  Von 
Soden's  division  of  the  Marcan  material  into  a  Petrine 
and  a  later  source  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  The  two 
critics  do  not  differ  greatly  about  the  passages  they  regard 
as  secondary.  Von  Soden's  Petrine  narrative  does  not 
differ  greatly  from  Wendling's  M1+M2.  But  the  line 
of  demarkation  between  Ml  and  M2,  and  Wendling's 
reasons  for  drawing  this,  are  not  as  self-evident  as  the  line 
which  Wendling  and  von  Soden  agree  in  drawing  between 
the  earlier  document,  or  source,  and  the  work  of  the 
Evangelist. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        83 

conclusions  of  von  soden  and  wendling  compared 

A  tabulation  of  the  results  discloses  the  following  agree- 
ments and  disagreements  between  von  Soden's  Petrine 
narrative  and  Wendhng's  M1+M2. 

Von  Soden  i,  4-11,     16-20,  21-39  ii,  1-28 

Wendling     i,  4-14a,  16-34a,  35-39o,  40-44  ii,  l-15a,  166-17,  186,  196 

Von  Soden  iii,  1-6,  13-19,  21-35  iv,  1-9,  21-32 

Wendling     21-28  iii,  1-5,  20,  21,  31-35  iv,  1-9,  26-29,  33,  35-41 

Von  Soden  vi,  6-16  viii,  27-38 

Wendling     v,  1-42,  436  vi,  14,  17-30,  33-44  viii,  27-30a,  336,  36,  37 

Von  Soden  ix,  1      32-40  x,  13-45 

Wendling     ix,  2-8, 14-27  x,  1, 13-23, 25, 31, 32o,  35-37, 41-52,  xi,  1-10 

Von  Soden  xii,  13-44  xiii,  1-6 

Wendling     15-17,  276-33  xii,  l-14a,  14c-31,  346-37  xiii,  1-2,  28-29 

Von  Soden  28-37 

Wendling     33-36  xiv,   1-7,   10-20,  22-35o,  36-37,  39-41a,  42-56, 
60-62a 

Von  Soden 

Wendling     63-72  xv,  1-38,  40-42,  46-47  xvi,  l-7a,  8 

The  comparison  shows  Wendling's  analysis  to  be  much 
more  complex  than  von  Soden's.  This  results  from  his 
separation  of  his  groundwork  into  two  strands.  It  also 
shows  that  Wendling  assigns  considerably  more  to  Ml 
and  M2  than  von  Soden  to  his  Petrine  source.  This 
Wendling  can  afford  to  do,  since  he  supposes  two  docu- 
ments instead  of  one.  The  matter  assigned  by  von 
Soden  to  the  Petrine  source  is  in  part  assigned  by  Wendling 
to  Ml  and  in  part  to  M2.  E.g.,  i,  4-11,  is  assigned  by 
von  Soden  to  the  Petrine  source,  and  by  Wendling  to 
M2;  but  i,  16-39,  is  assigned  to  the  Petrine  source,  and 
(with  the  exception  of  two  parts  of  verses)  to  Ml.     The 


84  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

passage  ii,  1-28,  is  assigned  by  von  Soden  to  the  Petrine 
source,  by  Wendling  to  Ml  (again  with  exception  of  a 
few  parts  of  verses).  Of  the  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven  verses  assigned  by  von  Soden  to  his  Petrine 
source,  up  to  and  including  xiii,  37  (after  which  he  so 
assigns  nothing),  Wendhng  assigns  about  one  hundred 
and  twenty-four  to  his  Ml,  and  only  ten  to  M2.  Tho 
he  assigns  some  verses  to  Ml  which  von  Soden  does 
not  give  to  the  Petrine  source,  and  omits  some  (assigning 
them  to  the  redactor)  which  von  Soden  does  so  assign,  up 
to  xiii,  37,  the  Ml  of  Wendling  agrees  very  closely  with 
the  Petrine  source  of  von  Soden.  The  material  assigned 
to  Ml  and  M2  after  xiii,  37,  is  about  equally  divided 
between  them.  Wendling  makes  no  claims  for  the  Petrine 
origin  of  his  Ml  or  M2,  but  after  these  are  subtracted 
from  the  whole  Gospel  there  is  a  smaller  amount  left  for 
the  work  of  his  redactor  than  remains  after  the  Petrine 
source  is  subtracted.  Since  Wendling  distinguishes  be- 
tween two  sources  and  the  work  of  the  redactor,  and 
von  Soden  only  between  the  Petrine  tradition  and  other 
matter,  this  result  also  is  what  would  be  expected. 

The  relatively  great  agreement  of  the  results  of  these 
two  investigations  seems  to  prove  that  it  is  possible  to 
distinguish  an  earlier  and  a  later  tradition  in  the  Gospel. 
Beyond  this,  the  difference  between  von  Soden  and  Wend- 
ling is  that  the  former  makes  no  assertions  concerning  the 
identity  of  the  final  editor  with  the  writer  who  recorded 
the  Petrine  tradition,  while  the  latter  asserts  that  the 
redactor  is  quite  another  person  than  the  writer  of  either 
Ml  or  M2.  Is  this  latter  position  of  Wendling's  sus- 
ceptible of  proof  or  disproof  ? 

Perhaps  the  simplest  criterion,  and  the  one  to  be  most 
safely  applied,  is  that  of  vocabulary.     Sir  John  Hawkins 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        85 

compiled  a  list^  of  forty-one  words  which  he  regards 
as  characteristic  of  Mark.  Do  these  words  occur  indis- 
criminately in  Ml,  M2,  and  Ev,  or  are  they  confined  some 
of  them  to  Ml,  and  some  to  M2,  and  some  to  Ev?  Or 
is  there  sufficient  difference  in  the  frequency  with  which 
these  words  occur  in  the  three  strata  to  justify  the  assump- 
tion of  three  different  authors,  and  especially  that  Ev 
was  distinct  from  the  writers  of  the  two  documents  ?  If 
not,  the  division  between  earlier  and  later  material  in 
Mark  may  still  stand,  but  it  may  have  been  one  and  the 
same  writer  who  put  the  whole  Gospel  together  out  of 
these  earlier  and  later  materials. 

Characteristic  of  Mark^  is  the  historic  present. 
Hawkins  finds  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  examples  of  this 
use  in  Mark  against  seventy-eight  in  Matthew  (twenty- 
one  of  these  taken  from  Mark),^  and  four  in  Luke.  Of 
these  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  historic  presents  in  Mark, 
forty-nine  occur  in  passages  assigned  by  Wendling  to 
Ml,  sixty-nine  in  M2,  and  thirty-three  in  Ev. 

Of  the  peculiarly  Marcan  words,  some  prove  nothing  in 
this  connection.  'EvayyeXLOu  is  used  only  by  Ev  (seven 
times) ;  but  since  Wendling  uses  the  presence  of  this  word 
as  a  criterion  of  Ev's  work  in  six  out  of  the  seven  passages 
where  it  occurs,  this  adds  nothing  to  the  proof.  "AXaXos 
is  used  once  by  Ml,  twice  by  M2,  and  not  by  Ev.  But 
since  Ev  adds  no  story  of  a  dumb  man,  he  has  no  occasion 
to  use  the  word.  (He  does  add  a  story  of  a  stammering 
man,  where  he  uses  the  word  yuoytXaXos.)  KXaafxa,  used 
once  by  M2  and  three  times  by  Ev,  signifies  little;   since 

1  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  12-1.3. 

=  See  Hawkins,  pp.  144-48. 

3  The  seventy-eight  does  not  include  parables,  where  the  present  is  not 
historic. 


86  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  three  uses  in  Ev  occur  in  the  same  passage,  and  this 
passage  is  a  copy  of  the  passage  in  M2  (the  feeding  of  the 
multitudes).  Srdxi^s  occurs  three  times,  all  in  Ml,  but 
this  also  signifies  nothing,  since  no  passage  in  which  it 
could  occur  is  assigned  to  M2  or  Ev.  'EKiropevofiai  is 
used  twice  each  by  Ml  and  M2,  and  seven  times  by  Ev; 
but  since  five  of  these  seven  occurrences  are  in  the  same 
passage,  they  cannot  establish  any  particular  fondness 
for  this  word  on  the  part  of  Ev  as  against  the  other  two. 
EldiropevoiJLaL  looks  a  little  more  favorable  for  Wendling's 
hypothesis,  since  it  is  used  once  by  Ml,  twice  by  M2,  and 
five  times,  in  separated  passages,  by  Ev.  'AKadapros, 
found  three  times  in  Ml,  four  in  M2,  and  three  in  Ev; 
aird  jiaKpbdev,  three  times  in  M2  and  twice  in  Ev;  hbaxr], 
used  three  times  by  M2  and  twice  by  the  redactor,  and 
0€pco,  five  times  used  by  Ml,  eight  times  by  M2,  and  twice 
by  Ev,  do  nothing  toward  establishing  a  distinct  vocabu- 
lary for  any  one  of  the  three.  Only  two  words,  hacTek- 
\op.ai,  used  four  times  by  the  redactor  in  four  different 
chapters,  and  not  by  Ml  or  M2;  and  eKdanlSodfxaL,  used 
only  by  M2,  four  times  in  three  different  chapters, 
point  in  the  direction  of  distinct  vocabularies.  But  the 
absence  of  the  third  of  these  words  can  certainly,  and  of 
the  second  probably,  be  accounted  for  by  the  subject- 
matter. 

There  is  here  practically  no  evidence  of  distinct  vocabu- 
laries. Even  if  there  were,  it  would  be  fully  offset  by  the 
use  of  words  having  no  necessary  connection  with  any 
particular  subject-matter,  and  therefore  equally  likely 
to  occur  in  any  part  of  the  Gospel.  Five  such  words  are 
the  adverbs  evdvs,  ttoKlv,  ttoXXol,  ovkIti,  and  outtco.  Of 
these,  the  first  (Mark's  most  characteristic  word)  is  used 
seventeen  times  by  Ml,  fifteen  by  M2,  and  ten  by  Ev. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        87 

Considering  the  relative  amounts  of  narrative  matter 
ascribed  to  the  three,  this  usage  seems  to  indicate  an 
equal  fondness  for  this  word  among  them.  The  second 
(TrdXtj')  is  used  ten  times  by  Ml,  eight  times  by  M2,  and 
nine  times  by  Ev;  the  third  (ttoXXcl)  is  used  adverbially 
three  times  by  Ml,  six  times  by  M2,  and  three  times  by 
Ev;  the  fourth  (ovkItl),  twice  by  Ml,  twice  by  M2,  three 
times  by  Ev;  the  fifth  (pvirco),  once  by  Ml  and  four  times 
by  Ev. 

Characteristic  of  Mark  also  is  his  use  of  the  imper- 
fects eXeyev  and  eXtyov.  They  are  found  fourteen  times 
in  Ml,  fifteen  times  in  M2,  and  twenty-one  times  in  the 
passages  ascribed  to  Ev. 

Of  the  forty-one  verses  listed  on  p.  246  as  stand- 
ing in  both  Mark  and  Q,  thirty-four  are  in  passages 
assigned  by  Wendling  to  Ev.  This  would  seem  to  tell 
in  Wendling's  favor,  since  the  last  writer  who  had  a  hand 
in  the  making  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  would  naturally  be 
the  one  most  likely  to  make  use  of  Q.  Three  verses, 
however,  occur  in  passages  assigned  to  Ml,  and  four  in 
M2.  This  would  indicate  that  all  three  writers,  besides 
having  the  same  favorite  words,  were  acquainted  with  and 
made  some  use  of  Q.  The  item  of  the  relation  of  the 
various  writers  to  Q,  however,  has  little  or  no  significance; 
since  it  is  the  sections  having  the  greatest  amount  of 
logian  matter  and  the  least  narrative,  that  are  assigned 
to  Ev. 

The  cumulative  effect  of  these  considerations  is  very 
much  to  the  discredit  of  Wendling's  assumption  of  three 
different'writers  for  our  Gospel  of  Mark.  It  cannot,  to  be 
sure,  disprove  that  assumption;  but  it  at  least  shows  a 
lack  of  proof  where  proof  would  be  most  easily  found  and 
most  convincing. 


88  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

matthew  and  luke  used  our  mark  as  a  source 

Even  if  Wendling's  analysis  had  been  capable  of  sub- 
stantiation on  linguistic  grounds,  his  division  of  our 
Gospel  of  Mark  into  three  strands  from  three  different 
authors  would  not  help  us  toward  an  Ur-Marcus  lying 
behind  our  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  For  Matthew 
or  Luke  or  both  of  them  follow  Mark  in  all  the  transpo- 
sitions, dislocations,  and  other  misarrangements  of  his 
Gospel.  Whether  these  features  stood  in  the  original 
Mark  or  not,  they  evidently  stood  in  the  Mark  used  by 
Matthew  and  Luke. 

Matthew  and  Luke  also  used  a  Mark  which  contained 
the  story  of  Jesus  in  the  same  order  given  by  our  present 
Mark.  Tho  both  of  them  deviate  from  this  order  for 
assignable  reasons,  one  or  the  other  of  them  is  found 
following  it  all  the  time.  If  these  deviations  go  back  to 
an  Ur-Marcus,  there  must  have  been  one  Ur-Marcus  in 
the  hands  of  Matthew  and  another  in  the  hands  of  Luke. 

THE    HYPOTHESIS    OF    A    PRIMITIVE    MARK    SUPERFLUOUS; 
SIMPLER   EXPLANATIONS 

Can  the  verbal  agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
as  against  Mark,  or  their  deviations  from  him  without 
apparent  reason,  be  explained  upon  any  simpler  hypothesis 
than  that  of  Ur-Marcus?  It  appears  to  the  writer  that 
they  can. 

A  certain  number  (tho  no  one  can  say  exactly  what 
proportion  of  the  whole)  of  the  agreements  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  against  Mark  may  be  allowed  to  be  accidental. 
Many  of  them,  like  the  substitution  of  elireu  for  Xe7€t,  or 
of  an  occasional  5e  for  Mark's  invariable  and  monotonous 
/cat  or  the  substitution  of  a  common  for  an  uncommon 
word  (like  K\iur]  for  Kpd(3aTTos)  require  no  explanation. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        89 

Agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  their  omissions 
from  the  Marcan  narrative  do  not  stand  upon  the  same 
plane  with  the  agreements  in  substitutions,  and  may  all  be 
accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  accident,  or  by  the  same 
desire  on  the  part  of  both  writers  to  be  more  concise,  or  to 
avoid  anything  derogatory  to  Jesus  or  the  apostles ;  or  by 
some  other  similar  motive  at  work  separately  in  the  minds 
of  the  two  later  evangelists.  It  is  only  the  agreements  in 
corrections  and  substitutions  that  require  accounting  for. 
I  believe  these  can  be  explained  chiefly  on  two  grounds: 

1.  It  is  not  iiecessary  to  assume  that  Matthew  and 
Luke  both  worked  ujion  the  same  identical  copy  of  our 
Mark.  If  they  used  two  copies,  these  two  would  not  be 
expected  to  agree  absolutely  with  each  other  in  the 
wording  of  every  passage.  This  would  account  for  some 
of  the  slight  deviations  in  the  wording  of  either  Matthew 
or  Luke  where  the  other  agrees  with  our  present  Mark. 
These  two  copies  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used  maj^ 
neither  of  them  have  been  the  original  (since  in  both  of 
them  the  conclusion  at  least  was  gone) ;  or  at  least  not  the 
original  in  its  original  form.  One  of  them  may  have  been 
a  copy  of  the  original,  and  the  other  a  copy  of  this  copy. 
Or  they  may  both,  as  Sanday  argues,  have  belonged  to  a 
type  later,  and  not  earlier,  than  our  present  Mark.  This 
would  account  for  the  agreements,  and  for  such  deviations 
as  have  not  already  been  accounted  for,  or  cannot  be 
accounted  for,  by  the  known  literary  peculiarities  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  Since  the  text  of  Mark  that  has 
come  down  to  us  is  more  corrupt  than  that  of  either 
Matthew  or  Luke,  various  words  in  which  Matthew  and 
Luke  now  agree  against  Mark  may  have  stood  in  the 
text  which  both  of  them  used,  and  may  later  have  dropped 
out,  before  the  copy  was  made  to  which  our  present  texts 


90  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

go  back.  Or  the  two  copies  of  Mark,  assumed  above, 
may  both  have  been  made  from  the  original  copy  which 
Mark  made  with  his  own  hand.  Upon  this  supposition 
even,  they  would  not  always  agree,  and  so  deviations  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  from  Mark,  and  occasional  agree- 
ments in  such  deviations,  would  be  explained.  Or  these 
agreements  may  be  explained,  as  is  obvious  in  many 
instances,  by  the  working  of  similar  motives  in  the  minds 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  even  assuming  them  to  have  made 
their  extracts  from  one  and  the  same  copy,  or  from  two 
practically  identical  copies,  of  Mark. 

Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  in  his  Corrections  of  Mark  (London, 
1901)  gives  an  exhaustive  list  of  the  deviations  from 
Mark  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  agree.  Many  of 
these  are  such  as  to  suggest  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used 
not  an  Ur-Marcus,  but  a  text  of  Mark  later  than  the  one 
that  has  come  down  to  us-.  E.g.,  in  twelve  instances 
Matthew  and  Luke  agree  in  supplying  the  subject  or 
object  which  our  Mark  omits.  In  fifteen,  they  agree  in 
correcting  abrupt  constructions,  supplying  a  connecting 
word.  In  thirteen  (exclusive  of  Xe'7€t)  they  agree  in 
correcting  Mark's  historic  present.  In  twelve  they  agree 
in  replacing  Mark's  relative  clause  or  his  subjunctive 
by  a  participle.  In  twenty-three  they  agree  in  substi- 
tuting elirev  for  Xeyet.  In  thirty  they  agree  in  the  use 
of  Se  for  Kal.  It  is  not  impossible  that  Matthew  and 
Luke,  independently  bent  on  improving  Mark's  style,  have 
accidentally  agreed  in  making  these  same  improvements  in 
the  same  places  (especially  since  there  are  other  improve- 
ments of  the  same  sort  in  which  they  do  not  agree).  But 
it  is  a  much  simpler  and  more  adequate  hypothesis,  that 
they  both  used  a  text  of  Mark  in  which  these  corrections 
had  already  been  made. 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form?        91 

Yet  even  of  this  text  they  probably  did  not  use  the  same 
identical  copy.  And  as  the  copy  used  by  one  or  both  of 
them  may  have  been  two  or  three  removes  from  the  text 
from  which  it  started,  many  changes  may  have  crept  into 
the  copy  used  by  one  of  them,  not  contained  in  the  copy 
used  by  the  other.  This  would  account  alike  for  the 
agreements  in  deviations  from  our  present  Mark,  and  for 
the  fact  that  these  corrections  are  not  all  of  them  found 
in  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  last  item  is  further 
accounted  for  by  the  freedom  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in 
making  their  own  corrections  in  the  copy  that  lay  before 
them.^  Allowance  should  also  be  made  for  the  fact  that 
we  cannot  be  sure  that  we  have  yet  recovered  the  true 
text  of  either  Matthew  or  Luke.^ 

2.  The  agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  against  Mark 
can  further  be  accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  of  assimila- 
tion. Matthew  made  certain  changes  of  his  own  in  the 
wording  of  Mark;  Luke  apparently  made  many  more. 
The  various  texts  still  extant  show  many  efforts  of  copyists 
to  bring  the  deviations  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in  small 
verbal  items  into  an  agreement.  If  this  same  process 
went  on  during  the  period  covered  by  our  earliest  manu- 
scripts, it  is  probable  that  it  went  on  to  a  much  greater 
extent  at  an  earlier  date,  before  our  Gospels  had  acquired 
the  sacredness  which  they  later  came  to  possess.  A  fine 
illustration  of  this  process  and  its  results  is  to  be  seen  in 
the  Matthean  and  Lucan  versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
in  which  the  probably  original  "Let  thy  Holy  Spirit  come 
upon  us  and  purify  us,"  of  Luke,  has  been  assimilated  to 
"Thy  kingdom  come,"  and  in  many  manuscripts  also 
to  "Thy  will  be  done  as  in  heaven  so  upon  earth,"  of 

1  See  Sanday's  essay,  in  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  21-22. 

2  Turner,  Theological  Studies,  January,  1909,  p.  175,  quoted  by  Sanday. 


92  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Matthew.  The  extent  of  this  sort  of  assimilation  can 
never  be  determined;  but  it  seems  quite  sufficient  to 
account  for  agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  against 
Mark  not  easily  accounted  for  on  other  grounds. 

A  more  general  reason  against  the  assumption  of  an 
Ur-Marcus  in  the  hands  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  the 
comparatively  small  number  and  importance  of  their 
agreements  against  Mark,  as  compared  with  the  very 
large  number  of  the  deviations  in  which  they  do  not  agree, 
and  as  compared  also  with  the  vastly  greater  number  of 
instances  in  which  both  Matthew  and  Luke  follow  Mark 
faithfully.  In  other  words,  if  Ur-Marcus  differed  from 
our  Mark  only  in  those  words  and  phrases  in  which  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  agree  against  our  Mark,  then  Ur-Marcus 
was  at  the  most  not  a  different  Mark  from  ours,  but  only 
a  different  copy  or  text  of  our  Mark.  The  assumption 
of  an  Ur-Marcus  was  a  natural  one  for  the  explanation 
of  the  phenomena  in  question;  but  it  is  a  cumbersome 
hypothesis,  and  insecure;  further  study  seems  to  discredit 
it.     Matthew  and  Luke  used  our  Mark,  not  another. 

It  has  often  been  suggested  that  the  Marcan  material 
covered  by  the  "great  omission"  of  Luke  (Mk  vi,  45 — 
viii,  26)  was  absent  from  the  copy  of  Mark  used  by  Luke, 
tho  present  in  that  used  by  Matthew.  Reasons  for  Luke's 
omission  of  this  long  Marcan  section  have  been  given,  and 
seem  sufficient  without  the  assumption  of  its  absence  from 
Luke's  copy  of  Mark.  But  the  theory  of  its  absence  has 
also  important  items  directly  against  it.  The  section  has 
the  general  Marcan  characteristics.  Mark  has  one 
hundred  and  forty-one  historic  presents;  eighteen  of  them 
are  in  this  section.  He  uses  eWvs  thirty-four  times, 
five  in  this  section;  ttoXlv  twenty-six  times,  five  in  this 
section.      He   is   partial   to   the   imperfects   eXeyev   and 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form? 


93 


eKeyov,  which  he  uses  fifty  times  (against  Matthew's 
twenty-three  and  Luke's  nine),  six  times  in  this  section. 
The  same  habit  of  dupUcate  expression  which  occurs  in 
other  parts  of  his  Gospel  appears  here.  6  iariv  in  the 
sense  of  ''i.e.,"  pecuHar  to  Mark  among  the  evangelists, 
appears  here  twice  (four  times  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel). 
Seven  out  of  the  nine  sections  begin  with  /cat.  The 
section  seems  to  be  too  homogeneous  with  the  rest  of  the 
book  to  be  from  a  different  hancl.^ 

The  foregoing  considerations  seem  to  render  the 
hypothesis  of  Ur-Marcus  superfluous.  The  phenomena 
for  which  it  was  designed  to  account  are  more  easih' 
and  naturally  explained  by  other  suppositions. 

SOME    remarkable    VERBAL   RESEMBLANCES 

In  the  preceding  pages  sufficient  consideration  has 
been  given  not  only  to  the  fact,  but  to  the  manner,  of  the 
use  of  Mark  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  Visual  illustration, 
by  the  printing  of  a  few  passages  in  different  kinds  of 
type  may  serve  to  enforce  some  of  the  more  general  facts 
already  brot  out.  The  words  (or  parts  of  words)  common 
to  the  three  Synoptics,  in  the  following  passages,  will 
be  printed  in  heavy-faced  type. 


Mt  ix,  5-6:    ti  yapka-nv 

€VK01TWT6pOV,  iiviiv  ' 

Tai  cou  at  d|xapTCai,  y\ 
ctireiv  c-yeipc  Kal 

TrepiTTciTet,-   i'va  8€  etS- 
fJT€  ijTi  «|ovcriav 
'iyjti  6  vlos  Tov  dvOpw- 


Mk  ii,  9-lOa:  tC  Io-tiv 
evKOTTtoTepov,  etireiv 
Tip  TrapaXvTLKw  ■   d<j)tev- 
raC  <rov  al  d|j.apT(ai,  r[ 
elireiv  •  c'-ycipc  Kal 
apov  TOV  Kpa^^arov 
ffov  Kai  viraye ;    I'va  Se  €l8- 
fJT€  OTi  €|ov<r£av 
i'x.61  o  vtos  TOV  dv6p<o- 


Lk    V,   23-24;    ti    Io-tiv 
cvKoirwTepov,  elireiv  • 

d<}>e'a)v- 
Ttti  croi  at  d|ji,apTiai  o-ov 
T]  elireiv*  e'yeipe  Kal 

irepiirdTei ;  iva  5e  eiS- 
riTe  on  6  vlos  tov  dv- 
Opwirov  e|ovo"iav  e^ei 


1  See  Hawkins,  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  64-66. 


94 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


irov  tiri  TT]s  "yiis  a<picv- 
ai  a^jtaprCas,  rbrt  Xeyei 
Tw  trapaXvTiKifi 

'iyipdels  apov  crov 
Trji'  K\lvr)v  Kai  viraye 
cls  Tov  oIkov  <rov. 


-irou  €iri  Ti]s  yf\^  d<j>i.^v- 
ai  dpiapTias,  X^76( 
Tu    irapaXvTiKtfi  •     ffol    \4y- 
w,  'iytipe  dpov  rhv 

Kpd^^arov  <rov  /cai  iJiraye 

ctS  TOV  oIkOV  (TOV. 


€irl  Tf]s  ■yns  a<J)i^v- 

ai  dfiapTias,  flTref 

T<p  irapaXe\i;^i^i'(f}  •  (rot  \e7- 

w,  c-y^'P^  '^"■'  apas  to 

KXividibv  (TOV  TTopei/oi/ 

cls  TOV  oIkOV  O'OV. 


Here  the  evangelists  differ  each  from  the  other  in  the 
words  ascribed  to  Jesus,  but  when  they  come  to  the 
parenthetic  explanation  injected  into  the  midst  of  the 
sentence,  iVa  8e  €l8rjre,  etc.,  they  agree  exactly,  not  only 
in  the  wording,  but  in  the  awkward  placing  of  the  clause. 
The  three  accounts  agree  in  the  first  five  lines,  except  for 
the  presence  of  yap  in  Matthew,  the  insertion  of  tcc  irapa- 
XvTLKU)  in  Mark,  and  a  slightly  different  form  of  the  verb 
a(t)ir]ij.L  in  Luke.  In  the  fourth  line  Luke  also  inserts 
COL,  after  which  come  seven  consecutive  agreeing  words 
(tho  with  slight  rearrangement  in  order  by  Luke).  Mark 
then  has  a  clause  of  six  words  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
omit.  The  latter  agree  in  substituting  TreptTrdret  for 
viraye,  and  two  (different)  words  from  the  same  root  for 
Mark's  Kpd^(3aTov.  Luke  has  preserved  the  aol  Xeyco 
which  Matthew  has  dropped. 


Mt  xii,  3-4:  ovk 
dv«*yvwT€  ri  iiToLr\a-tv 
AavctS,  6t€  €7r€(vao-€v 

01  p,€T'  avTov; 

TTWS  tlcfjXOeV  €ls   TOV 
oIkOV  TOV   0€OV 

KOl      ToilS   dpTOVS    TTJS 

irpo0^o-cu>s 

c4>a-yov,  S  ovk  i^bv  ijv 
avTip  <|>a'Y<iv  oiidi  tois 
/uer'  avToO,  cl  111) 
TOis  Itptvcriv  fidvoLS; 


Kal 


Mk  ii,  25-26:  ovd^Trore 
dvc'-yvwTC  Ti  €iro£T]<r€v 
AavcCS  0T€  XP^^"'"  f""- 
Xev  Kai  i-Kilvaa-iv  avTOS  Kal 
ol  [i,«t'  avTOvJ 
7r«s  «to-f]\0€v  ets  TOV 
oIkov  TOV  Otov  i-jri 
'  Apiddap  dpxi-fp^<^s 

KttV  TOVS   dpTOVS  TTJS 

irpoOtoreios 

€(t>a'Ycv,  ovs  OVK  'i^eff- 

TIV  (}>a'Y€lV  ti  [IT] 

ToOs  Upets,  Kal  15- 
WKev  Kai  TOis  irvv 
avTW  oUcriv; 


Lk  vi,  3-4:   ovde  toOto 
dv^YvtoTt  6  €iroir]o-€v 
AavcCS  oTTOTc  CTTcCvao'cv 
aiiTos  Kal 
01  |1€t'  avTOV  Sires; 

cos  €l0"fj\9cv  cls  TOV 
oIkOV  tov  0€OV 

Kal  Tovs  apTOvs  ttjs 
-irpoOcVcws  f\a^ev  /cai 
€(t>a-yev,  Kal  edwKev  Kai 
Tois  Aier'  avToO,  ovs  ovk 
(i^effTiv  <|>aYCiv  €l  (i'^ 
fjidvovs  ToOs  UptTs; 


Have  We  Mark  in  Its  Original  Form? 


95 


Few  brief  passages  in  the  triple  tradition  will  better 
repay  study  than  this.  Note  that  the  three  introduce 
their  question  with  three  different  particles.  Matthew 
and  Luke  omit  the  apparently  superfluous  words  of  Mark, 
XPiiav  etrxef,  but  Luke  retains  the  avros  of  Mark  which 
Matthew  has  dropped.  Luke  adds  ovres,  perhaps  in 
deference  to  Mark's  ovatv,  used  in  a  similar  phrase 
but  different  connection.  He  substitutes  cos  for  the  ttcos 
of  Mark  and  Matthew.  Mark  and  Luke  both  have  the 
statement  that  David  "gave"  the  bread  to  those  that 
were  with  him,  Luke  adding  that  he  "took"  it.  All  three 
have  in  conclusion  the  phrase  "to  those  with  him,"  but 
each  has  inserted  it  in  a  different  place.  Matthew 
follows  Mark  more  closely  than  does  Luke,  the  latter 
transposing  one  or  two  clauses.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  omitted  the  reference  to  Abiathar,  either  because 
they  (or  Luke  at  least)  had  no  interest  in  it,  or  for  its 
historical  difficulty.  Li  spite  of  these  changes  there  is  a 
most  remarkable  verbal  agreement  thruout.  Except  for 
Mark's  superfluous  "had  need,"  and  his  reference  to 
Abiathar,  nothing  can  be  found  in  either  account  that  is 
not  duplicated,  practically  word  for  word  and  almost 
letter  for  letter,  in  one  or  both  of  the  others. 


Mt  iv,  18-22:     UepiiraTuv  8^  irapdriiv        Mk  i,  16-20:    Kat  irapdywu  irapd  tt]v 


OdXao-o-av  rfis  TaXiXaias  ilBiv  8ijo 
d5€\<f)ovs,  SCfxcova  rbv  \ey6fxevov  H^t- 
pov  Kal  AvSpeav  tov  dS6X(}>6v  airov 
pdWovras  dfj.<pi^\7j(TTpov  «ts  Tr\u  6d\- 
aTO-av  ■     TJo-av  -ydp  dXeeis.     Kal  X^7- 
ei.  avTois  '  SevTE  oirCo'co  ^ov,  Kal 
•iTOir\a-(a  v|xds  dXeets  dvOptoircov.      oi 
5^  €v9€b>s  d<|>€'vT€s  xd  8iKTva  T|K0X- 
ovOt]<rav  awrw.     Kal  irpo^ds  ^Kei- 
dev  eIScv  dWovs  dvo  d8e\(f>ovs, 
IdK<i>|3ov  TOV  TOV  ZcfScSaCov  Kal    Iwdv- 


6dXaa-(rav  Tfjs  FaXiXaCas  cIScv 
]SC[ib)va 
Kal '  Av8p4av  tov  d8€X<|>6v  'Zifnovos 
d/i0ipdXXovTas  tv  TT]  QaXaarirrj- 

•^o-av  ^dp  dXcEis.      Kal  eiTr- 
€v  avTols  •     SevTe  oirCo-o)  fiov,  Kal  iTOi,'f\- 
cro)  {i|jids  yeviadaL  dX€€is  dvOpwirwv.      kolI 
euGvs  d<j)€vT€s  Td  SiKTva  t|koX- 
ov0T|(rov  avT«o.  Kal  irpo^ds  0X1701' 

'IdKw|3ov  TOV  TOV  ZepcSaiov  Kal  'ludv- 


96 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


vTiv  Tov  dSc\(|>6v  avTOv,  «v  Tw  ttXoCu) 

juera  Ze^edaiov  tov  Trarpbs  avrCiv 
KarapTi^ovras  to,  SiKTua  avrOiv  •  Kal 
CKaXeo-ev  avirovs.   oi  5^  (€i)9€ws) 
d<t>^VT€S  TO  irKolov  koX  (tov  iraTepa 
avTwv)  r)Ko\otj0ri(rav  airm. 


vi\v  TOV  dS€\<}>ov  avTOv,  Kal  avroirs  iv  nS 
irXoiu) 

KttTapTl^OVTaS   Ttt   SlKTVa.         Kal     (€V0VS) 

eKdX€0-€v  avTOvs "    Kal  d«j)€vT€S  (tov  iraTtpa 
avTwv)  Ze^edaiov  iv  t^  irXoftf;  /xera  tuv 
lj.L(Td(j}Tu>v  dTrijXdov  oiricro}  avToO. 


This  passage  contains  the  striking  addition  of  the 
parenthetical  explanation  rjcrav  yap  dXeets.  That  this 
should  occur  in  a  narrative  portion,  and  not  in  a  saying 
of  Jesus,  is  the  more  significant.  For  the  rest,  the  saying 
ascribed  to  Jesus  runs  word  for  word  (tho  its  brevity 
in  this  case  robs  this  fact  of  any  very  remarkable  signifi- 
cance) ;  in  the  narrative  portion  Matthew  mentions  that 
Simon  was  called  Peter  (a  remark  which  Mark  saves  till 
he  comes  to  the  formal  naming  of  the  twelve),  and  in  the 
conclusion  he  says  ''they  left  the  boat  and  their  father," 
while  Mark  says  "they  left  their  father  in  the  boat," 
adding,  "with  the  hired  men."  Mark  says  Jesus  called 
the  two  "immediately."  Matthew  says  they  left  "imme- 
diately " 


CHAPTER  VI 

USE  OF  A  COMMON  DOCUMENT  BY  MATTHEW 
AND  LUKE 

The  document  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke  as  the 
source  of  their  common  non-Marcan  material  was  for 
some  time  generally  identified  with  the  "Logia"  which 
Papias  says  Matthew,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  wrote 
in  Hebrew,  undoubtedly  meaning  Aramaic.  Until  some 
sufficient  justification  for  this  identification  has  been 
given,  it  seems  better  to  refer  to  the  common  non-Marcan 
source  of  Matthew  and  Luke  under  the  more  colorless 
symbol  Q. 

The  common  non-Marcan  tradition  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  consists  almost  exclusively  of  logian  material.  It 
contains  a  few  parables,  brief,  and  deahng  usually  with 
the  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  one  or  two  sections  (such 
as  that  concerning  the  centurion  from  Capernaum,  and 
the  Temptation)  which  may  quite  properly  be  regarded 
as  narrative,  but  which  also  contain  large  logian  con- 
tent and  may  have  been  introduced  for  the  sake  of  the 
sayings. 

The  proof  that  the  source  of  the  common  non-Marcan 
material  of  Matthew  and  Luke  was  a  document  and  not  an 
oral  tradition  lies  in  the  extent  and  character  of  the  agree- 
ments between  the  two  Gospels ;  it  cannot  be  summarized 
in  a  paragraph,  but  comes  out  only  in  a  detailed  examina- 
tion of  the  double  tradition  such  as  is  undertaken  in  the 
following  pages. 

Before  the  theory  of  a  common  documentary  source 
for  the  non-Marcan  material  in  Matthew  and  Luke  can 

97 


98  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

be  accepted,  it  must  defend  itself  against  two  apparently 
simpler  hypotheses,  viz.,  that  Matthew  copied  from  Luke 
or  Luke  from  Matthew. 

Did  Matthew  copy  from  Luke  ?  His  genealogical  tree 
does  not  agree  with  Luke's.^  He  betrays  in  his  story 
of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  no  knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
Joseph's  home  was  originally  at  Nazareth.  This  latter 
place  he  first  mentions  in  ii,  23,  as  the  place  to  which 
Joseph  went  upon  his  return  from  Egypt.  Matthew  has 
a  greater  interest  in  John  the  Baptist  than  has  Luke,  as  is 
indicated  by  his  fuller  treatment  of  the  fact  and  circum- 
stances of  his  death,  contrasted  with  Luke's  leaving  him  in 
prison  undisposed  of.  Yet  Matthew  does  not  employ  the 
material  concerning  the  preaching  of  John,  which  Luke 
has  embodied  in  his  iii,  10-14.  Matthew  makes  a 
specialty  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  yet  omits  many  that 
Luke  contains.  In  short,  the  reason  for  denying  that 
Matthew  copied  from  Luke  is  the  impossibility,  upon  that 
hypothesis,  of  explaining  the  omissions  of  Lucan  material 
from  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  the  very  great  divergences 
between  the  two  Gospels  where  such  divergences  would 
not  be  expected  with  either  one  using  the  other  as  an 
exemplar. 

The  same  argument  which  refutes  Matthew's  use  of 
Luke  refutes  Luke's  use  of  Matthew. 

But  it  may  be  added,  that  upon  either  of  these 
hypotheses  it  becomes  impossible  to  explain  the  changes 
which  appear  to  have  been  made  by  both  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  the  material  common  to  them,  both  in  its  wording 
and  its  order.     If  Matthew  copied  from  Luke,  he  would 

1  Both  genealogies  may  easily  be  suspected  of  being  later  additions. 
If  Luke's  genealogy  is  a  gloss  there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  it  slioiild 
not  have  been  inserted  in  the  appropriate  place;  cf.  Sanders,  Journal  of 
Biblical  Literature,  XXX,  11. 


Use  of  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke      99 

naturally  have  followed  his  order,  which  he  does  not  do. 
Or,  deviating  from  that  order  for  obvious  reasons,  he 
would  naturally  return  to  it  when  those  reasons  no  longer 
prevailed,  which  he  does  not  do.  Or  if  Luke  copied  from 
Matthew,  he  could  hardly  have  inserted  a  genealogical 
tree  which  is  at  variance  with  Matthew's,  in  the  unnatural 
place  where  it  now  is,  as  against  the  natural  place  in  which 
he  found  it  in  Matthew.  Nor  could  he,  when  he  had  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  before  him  in  the  form  in  which 
Matthew  gives  it,  break  it  up  into  little  pieces  and  scatter 
it  up  and  down  thruout  his  Gospel.  Moreover,  in  the 
sayings  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  it  is  now  one  and 
now  the  other  who  preserves  what  we  must  consider  the 
most  original  reading;  as  when  Matthew  says,  "Cleanse 
first  the  inside  of  the  cup,"  and  Luke  in  place  of  this  says, 
"Give  alms  of  that  which  is  within."  But  again  it  is  not 
Matthew  but  Luke  who  gives  the  more  original  form  of  a 
saying;  as  when  Luke  says  "Blessed  are  ye  poor,"  and 
Matthew  says,  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit." 

The  phenomena  of  peculiar  words,  ninety-five  character- 
istic of  Matthew  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  charac- 
teristic of  Luke,  is  also  impossible  of  explanation  upon  the 
theory  that  either  writer  copied  from  the  other.  If  either 
one  were  copying  from  the  other,  they  would  certainly  agree 
against  Mark  in  some  really  important  matter,  and  not 
merely  in  an  occasional  word  or  phrase.  If  Luke  were 
copying  from  Matthew,  he  would  certainly  have  incorpor- 
ated some  one  of  those  numerous  additions  which  Matthew 
makes  to  the  narratives  of  Mark.^ 

In  addition  to  any  of  the  more  general  considerations 
which  have  suggested  the  possible  use  of  Matthew  by 

1  E.g.,  the  verses  on  Peter  and  the  keys,  or  on  Peter  walking  on  the 
water,  or  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  John  the  Baptist  at  the  time  o 
Jesus'  baptism. 


100  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Luke,  a  recent  writer  has  evolved  an  ingenious  and  some- 
what elaborate  proof  for  this  use,  which  it  may  be  well 
to  consider  in  some  detail. 

A  RECENT  ATTEMPT  TO  PROVE  MATTHEW  A  SOURCE  FOR 

LUKE 

.  Mr.   Robinson   Smith^  attempts   to   dispose  both   of 

Ur-Marcus  and  Q  by  maintaining  that  Luke  copied 
from  Matthew.  His  argument  rests  upon  the  deviations 
which  Matthew  and  Luke  make,  respectively,  in  their 
common  abbreviations  of  certain  of  Mark's  narratives. 
"Where  a  choice  from  two  or  more  Marcan  expressions 
has  been  made,  the  first  choice  falls  to  Matthew  and  the 
second  to  Luke." 

As  examples  of  these  first  choices  by  Matthew  and 
second  choices  by  Luke,  Mr.  Smith  instances  (with  the 
parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and  Luke)  Mk  i,  32;  iii,  7,  8; 
X,  29,  33,  34;  xii,  3;  xiv,  1,  12,  65;  xv,  42.  The  argu- 
ment seems  to  be  that  Luke  having  both  Mark  and 
Matthew  before  him,  and  seeing  that  in  each  of  these 
instances  Matthew  has  chosen  a  certain  part  of  Mark's 
phrase  and  rejected  the  rest,  himself  avoids  using  that 
part  of  the  phrase  which  Matthew  has  chosen,  restricting 
himself  to  the  part  which  Matthew  has  left  unused.  We 
will  take  up  first  the  particular  instances,  and  see  whether 
other,  perhaps  simpler,  reasons  suggest  themselves  for 
these  deviations;  after  that  we  will  consider  the  general 
argument. 

Mk  i,  32  (Mt  viii,  16;  Lk  iv,  40):  Mark's  phrase 
runs  'Oxl/las  8e  yevofxeurjs,  ore  edv  6  tjXlos.  Of  this 
phrase,  Matthew  takes  the  first  three  words  as  they  stand. 
Luke  appropriates  the  remainder,  changing  into  Avpovtos 

1  In  the  Hibbert  Journal.  No.  39,  April,  1912,  pp.  615-25. 


Use  of  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke    101 

8k  Tov  r}\lov.  Mark's  phrase  is  here  redundant,  and 
Matthew  and  Luke  (as  usual)  both  reduce  the  redundancy. 
But  Matthew  has  omitted  the  point  of  Mark's  phrase, 
since  in  Matthew's  account  the  events  described  did  not 
happen  on  the  Sabbath.  Luke  has  retained  the  essential 
part  of  the  phrase.^ 

Mk  iii,  7,  8  (Mt  iv,  25;  Lk  vi,  17):  "Mark  gives  in 
order  and  by  name  six  districts  from  which  the  multi- 
tudes came.  Matthew  mentions  all  save  the  last,  Tyre 
and  Sidon.  Luke  omits  the  first,  fourth,  and  fifth,  but 
does  mention  the  last.  Tyre  and  Sidon."  The  changes 
in  these  lists  seem  to  be  more  various  than  Mr.  Smith 
suggests.  Matthew  adds  Decapolis  and  omits  Idumaea.- 
The  thing  hard  to  account  for  in  Luke's  list  is  his  omission 
of  Galilee,  not  his  inclusion  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  These 
latter  regions  would  interest  him  especially,  with  his 
universalistic  tendency;  we  should  hardly  have  been 
surprised  to  find  him  adding  them  if  he  had  not  found 
them  in  Mark.  A  simple  explanation  of  the  changes 
made  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke  may  perhaps  be  seen  in 
Matthew's  Judaistic  tendency,  which  led  him  to  omit 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  in  Luke's  universalistic  tendency 
which  made  him  include  them.  To  make  Mr.  Smith's 
argument  hold  in  this  case,  Luke  should  certainly  have 
come  much  closer  than  he  does,  to  preserving  the  parts 
which  Matthew  rejects,  and  rejecting  the  parts  which  he 
retains.  It  appears  that  Luke  has  no  great  knowledge 
of  nor  interest  in  Palestinian  geography,  but  Tyre  and 
Sidon  suited  his  purpose. 

Mk  X,  29  (Mt  xix,  29;  Lk  xviii,  29):  Mark  here  has 
eveKeu  ijjLov  Kal  ev^Kev  tov  evayyeXiov.     Matthew  has  eW/ca 

1  This  passage  has  been  already  treated  in  a  different  connection  on 
p.  39. 

-  Omitted  in  some  manuscripts  of  Mark. 


102  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Tov  ifxov  ovofxaros,  and  Luke  eiveKev  ttj^  jSacriXetas  tov 
deov.  But  Matthew's  "my  name's  sake"  is  not  the 
same  as  Mark's  "my  sake,"  and  seems  to  bespeak 
Matthew's  later  date  of  writing.  Luke's  "for  the  sake  of 
the  kingdom  of  God"  has  a  more  primitive  sound  than  the 
latter  part  of  Mark's  phrase.  It  probably  represents  the 
original  words  of  Jesus  which  Matthew  has  everywhere 
changed  into  the  "kingdom  of  heaven."  Since  all  the 
passages  in  Mark  where  the  word  evayyeXLov  occurs  are 
on  independent  grounds  suspected  of  being  later  addi- 
tions, it  seems  probable  that  the  reading  of  Mark  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  had  before  them  here  was  merely 
eveKev  eixov,  that  both  Matthew  and  Luke  changed  this 
phrase  as  they  would,  and  that  the  evtKev  tov  evayyeXlov 
of  Mark  is  later  than  either  Matthew  or  Luke.  At  all 
events,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  true  in  this  instance  that 
Matthew  takes  the  first  part  of  Mark's  phrase  and  Luke 
the  last. 

Mk  xii,  3  (Mt  xxi,  35;  Lk  xx,  10):  Matthew's  account 
here  is  quite  different  from  Mark's  (which  is  followed  much 
more  closely  by  Luke).  According  to  Mark,  only  one 
servant  was  sent,  whom  the  vineyard-keepers  "caught 
and  beat  and  sent  away  empty."  According  to  Matthew 
several  servants  were  sent;  the  vineyard-keepers  caught 
them,  beat  one,  killed  one,  and  stoned  another.  This 
form  of  the  story  indicates  the  times  of  persecution  in 
which  it  was  worked  over  by  Matthew — when  more  than 
one  man  had  suffered  more  than  one  kind  of  indignity. 
Luke  sticks  close  to  the  story  of  Mark,  and  merely  omits 
the  Xa^oures  which  Matthew  retains.  Perhaps  Luke 
had  reflected  that  the  servant  had  to  be  caught  if  he  was 
to  be  beaten,  and  so  regarded  the  item  as  superfluous.  It 
does  happen  to  come  before  the  items  that  Luke  retains, 


Use  of  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke    103 

but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  Luke  would  have  had 
any  greater  antipathy  to  omitting  it  if  it  had  stood  last  or 
if  Matthew  had  also  omitted  it.  It  is  not  only  hard  to 
detect  any  influence  of  Matthew  upon  Luke  here,  but 
much  harder  to  see,  if  Luke  were  copying  Matthew,  why 
he  should  not  have  preferred  his  several  servants  to 
Mark's  one.  Later  in  the  same  story,  Luke  again  omits 
Mark's  Xa^ovres  where  Matthew  retains  it  (Mk  xii,  8), 
tho  here  both  Matthew  and  Luke  change  the  order  of  the 
incidents  in  the  verse,  probably  to  make  them  conform 
more  exactly  to  the  experience  of  Jesus.  The  omission 
of  the  participle  by  Luke  and  its  inclusion  by  Matthew 
is  most  simply  explained  by  Luke's  greater  interest  in 
stylistic  improvement.  The  instance  seems  to  be  barren 
for  Mr.  Smith's  purpose. 

Mk  xiv,  1  (Mt  xxvi,  2;  Lkxxii,  1):  Matthew's  account 
is  here  very  different  from  Mark's.  He  introduces  it 
with  the  words,  "And  it  came  to  pass  when  he  had  ended 
these  sayings."  This  is  a  formula  which  Matthew  uses 
five  times,^  and  which  is  found  in  Matthew  alone.  Since 
the  construction  eyevero  followed  by  a  finite  verb  is 
found  in  these  five  passages  alone  in  Matthew,  the 
formula  appears  to  have  stood  (once,  at  least,  if  not  in  all 
five  instances)  in  Q.-  It  also  seems  to  be  used  by  Matthew 
to  mark  his  transition  from  one  of  his  sources  to  the 
other.^  The  remark  which  Mark  here  makes  about  the 
approach  of  the  passover,  Matthew  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  as  a  part  of  the  speech  which  Mark  does  not  have. 
Luke  follows  Mark  in  making  the  statement  a  part  of  his 
narrative  and  in  omitting  the  speech  which  Matthew  gives. 

'  vii,  28;   xi,  1;   xiii,  53;   xix,  1;   xxvi,  1. 
-  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  p.  165. 
3  Wernle,  p.  110. 


104  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

These  facts  would  seem  to  indicate  that  Matthew  is  here 
following  Q,  while  Luke  follows  Mark.  Luke's  looser 
statement  (omitting  the  juerd  8vo  rjixepas,  and  substituting 
his  own  favorite  riyyiiev,^  and  adding  his  17  Xeyofieurj 
iraaxcO  would  seem  to  go  back  to  his  desire  not  to  trouble 
his  Greek  reader  with  too  exact  details,  and  yet  to  supply 
him  with  a  little  information  about  the  Jewish  feast. 
Here  again,  as  in  the  last  instance,  it  seems  especially 
strange  to  suggest  Matthew  as  a  source  of  Luke  where 
he  shows  such  an  absence  of  any  influence  from  him. 

Mk  xiv,  12  (Mt  xxvi,  17;  Lk  xxii,  7):  Here,  says 
Mr.  Smith,  Matthew  gives  the  first  and  second  parts  of 
Mark's  phrase,  Luke  the  second  and  third  parts.  The 
fact  seems  to  be  that  Matthew  here,  with  his  usual 
habit  of  condensing  Mark's  narrative,  omits  (what  his 
Jewish  readers  would  know  without  his  stating  it)  the 
statement  that  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  they  ''killed  the  passover."  Luke  changes  this 
from  a  particular  to  a  general  statement,  so  (as  above) 
conveying  to  his  Greek  reader  some  information  about 
the  custom  of  the  occasion  (eSet  dveaSai  to  Traaxa). 
Luke  here  shows  the  influence  of  Mark  and  not  of 
Matthew;  since  he  follows  Mark  (Mk  xiv,  13;  Lk  xxii, 
10)  in  including  eleven  words  which  he  copies  very  closely 
and  which  Matthew  omits.  He  also  agrees  with  Mark  in 
the  ascription  of  supernatural  knowledge  to  Jesus  upon 
this  occasion,  whereas  Matthew's  narrative  does  not 
carry  this  implication. 

Mk  xiv,  65  (Mt  xxvi,  67,  68;  Lk  xxii,  63,  64):  Mr. 
Smith  finds  the  influence  of  Matthew  upon  Luke  in  this 
passage,  in  the  fact  that  while  Mark  says  that  they  "spat 

'  Luke  uses  it  twenty-four  times  against  Matthew's  seven  and  Mark's 
four. 


Use  of  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke    105 

upon  Jesus,  blindfolded  him  and  smote  him,  Matthew 
records  the  first  and  third  of  these  actions,  Luke  the 
second  and  third. "^  Why  Luke  omits  the  spitting,  may 
not  be  easy  (or  necessary)  to  say.  But  that  Luke  here 
shows  the  reverse  of  any  influence  from  Matthew  is  indi- 
cated in  the  fact  that  whereas  Matthew  follows  Mark 
in  relating,  first  the  examination  of  Jesus,  then  the  mock- 
ery, and  third  the  denials  of  Peter,  Luke  rearranges  the 
Marcan  narrative  to  make  it  run,  first  the  denials,  second 
the  mockery,  and  third  the  examination.  He  has  received 
his  suggestion  for  this  rearrangement  from  the  fact  that 
Mark,  just  before  he  begins  the  story  of  the  mockery,  has 
mentioned  that  Peter  was  outside  the  hall,  warming  him- 
self by  the  fire.^  It  has  seemed  (quite  naturally)  to  Luke 
that  this  is  the  place  where  the  story  of  the  denials  should 
be  related,  tho  Mark  inserts  the  story  of  the  mockery 
before  he  goes  on^  with  the  denials.  In  a  passage  where 
Luke  has  so  thoroughly  rearranged  Mark  it  seems  unneces- 
sary to  account  for  his  omission  of  one  word,  especially  by 
such  a  remote  theory  as  that  of  Mr.  Smith;  and  in  a  pas- 
sage, too,  where  his  rearrangement  of  Marcan  material 
contradicts  Matthew's  slavish  following  of  it. 

Mk  XV,  42  (Mt  xxvii,  57;  Lk  xxiii,  54):  "Where  Mark 
says,  'When  the  even  was  come  because  it  was  the  prepara- 
tion, that  is  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,'  Matthew  says, 
'When  even  was  come,'  and  Luke  'the  rest.'"*  But 
Luke  does  not  quite  say  "the  rest."  He  says,^  "It 
was  the  day  of  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  was  dawning." 
And  this  he  says,  not  in  the  same  connection,  nor  with 
the  same  purpose,  as  Mark  (and  Matthew).  Mark  and 
Matthew  use  their  statement  about  the  evening  having 
come  as  an  introduction  to  their  story  about  the  request 

iP.  617.  2Mkxiv.  54.         '  In  xiv,  66.        "P.  617.         sLkxxii,  54. 


106  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

of  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  Luke  tells  his  story  of  Joseph 
without  any  such  introduction,  and  mentions  the  time 
only  after  he  has  finished  that  story,  apparently  with 
reference  to  the  story  of  the  women  which  follows,  rather 
than  to  that  of  Joseph  which  precedes.  The  argument  of 
the  last  paragraph  will  apply  here. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  go  with  equal  care  thru  the 
five  other  instances  in  which  Mr.  Smith  detects  in  a  similar 
way  the  influence  of  Matthew  upon  Luke.^  He  admits 
"two,  or  three,  or  at  the  most  four,  cases  of  Marcan 
expressions"  of  which  (without  explanation)  it  might 
appear  that  Luke  uses  the  first  part  and  Matthew  the 
last.  His  willingness  to  push  his  theory  to  the  extreme 
may  be  inferred  from  his  general  estimate  of  the  character 
of  Luke  as  a  writer:  ''He  blurs,  obliterates,  blunders, 
fabricates,   falsifies,   flattens   out,    mutilates,   murders. "^ 

The  secondary  interest  of  the  writer  would  also 
seem  to  have  influenced  his  work  somewhat  too  strongly. 
That  interest  is  indicated  in  the  following  statements: 
"If  Acts  was  written  in  a.d.  62,  ....  and  Luke  was 
written  before  Acts,  then  Matthew,  slipping  in  between 

Mark  and  Luke  must  throw  Mark  still  further  back 

We  thus  would  come  very  close  to  the  resurrection, 
perhaps  to  within  fifteen  years,  and  the  possibility  of 
legendary  and  controversial  elements  having  entered 
into  the  gospel  story  would  accordingly  be  reduced  to 

a  minimum With  our  understanding   of   Lucan 

derivations  from  Matthew,  as  well  as  from  Mark,  the 

>  See  his  note,  p.  618. 

2  P.  621.  This  judgment  upon  Luke  is  in  striking  contrast  to  tliat 
expressed  by  Miiller,  Zur  Synapse,  p.  3:  "Wellliausen  calls  Luke  a  "his- 
torian." This  judgment  rests  on  excellent  grounds.  We  see  this  at  once 
in  the  manner  in  which  Luke  has  used  the  text-scaffolding  of  Mark. 
Logical,  simple,  and  transparent  considerations  have  moved  him,"  etc. 
Muller's  judgment  is  decidedly  the  better. 


Use  of  Document  by  Matthew  and  Luke     107 

ghost  of  a  chance  of  existence  belonging  to  postulated 
common  sources,  such  as  an  earlier  or  a  later  Mark  and  a 
Q  is  frightened  away,  and  we  are  left  with  the  Gospels 
Mark,  Matthew,  Luke,  written  in  that  order,"  etc.^ 

Passing  from  the  details  of  Mr.  Smith's  statement 
to  the  general  argument  upon  which  they  rest,  the  present 
writer  can  see  no  cogency  in  that  argument.  Even 
if  the  use  of  Matthew  by  Luke  were  not  contradicted 
by  so  many  characteristics  of  both  those  Gospels,  the 
writer  cannot  see  how  the  choice  by  Luke  of  the  second 
part  of  a  phrase  of  which  Matthew  has  taken  the  first  part 
should  prove  the  use  of  Matthew  by  Luke.  Why  should 
not  Luke  feel  free  to  take  precisely  that  part  of  a  Marcan 
phrase  which  Matthew  has  taken — if  he  wanted  it? 
Why  should  his  finding  it  in  Matthew  make  him  feel  that 
he  was  not  at  liberty  to  use  it?  Why,  indeed,  if  Luke 
was  copying  Matthew,  should  he  not  have  followed  him 
in  his  quotation  of  a  certain  part  of  a  Marcan  phrase, 
instead  of  putting  himself  every  time  to  the  trouble  of 
going  back  to  his  Mark  to  pick  out  that  part  of  the  phrase 
which  Matthew  had  left  ?  It  does  not  quite  appear  whj^ 
the  facts  cited  by  Mr.  Smith  (so  far  as  analysis  of  the  pas- 
sages from  which  they  are  cited  leaves  any  of  them  stand- 
ing) might  not  just  as  well  be  turned  against  his  theory 
as  for  it. 

1  p.  625. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  EXISTENCE  AND  CONTENT  OF  Q 

Coming  back  to  the  theory  that  Matthew  and  Luke 
used  a  common  document  for  their  sayings-material,  we 
have  next  to  determine  what  the  content  of  that  docu- 
ment was. 

A  reasonable  degree  of  unanimity  prevails  among 
scholars  as  to  this  content,  or  at  least  as  to  a  considerable 
part  of  it.  Where  students  differ  is  as  to  the  sayings 
which  are  not  very  closely  parallel  in  the  two  Gospels, 
or  as  to  sayings  that  are  contained  in  only  one  of  the 
two.  As  to  the  sayings  which  are  practically  identical  in 
the  two,  or  which  show  such  very  marked  literary  agree- 
ments as  to  put  different  sources  out  of  the  question, 
there  is  no  dispute. 

There  appears  to  be  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  some 
scholars  to  extend  Q  indefinitely.  In  his  essay  in  the 
Oxford  Studies,  Mr.  Bartlet  seems  to  use  the  symbol  to 
cover  the  general  apostolic  tradition  (it  is  not  always 
apparent  whether  he  means  written  or  not).  Among 
German  scholars,  B.  Weiss  shows  the  same  disposition. 
Among  American  scholars,  Mr.  B.  W.  Bacon  suggests 
that  Q  might  originally  have  contained  much  more  and 
other  material  than  can  now  be  identified  for  it;  as  the 
narrative  parts  of  it,  being  taken  up  by  Mark,  and  copied 
from  him  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  would  fail  to  leave  in  these 
latter  Gospels  any  traces  of  themselves.  This  is  quite 
true.  But  if  Q,  in  addition  to  nearly  all  the  logian 
material  in  Matthew  and  Luke  originally  contained  all 

108 


Existence  and  Content  of  Q  109 

the  narrative  matter  of  Mark,  Q  was  not  only  a  complete 
Gospel,  but  quite  as  complete  a  Gospel  as  that  of  Matthew 
or  Luke;  perhaps  more  so,  since  Matthew  and  Luke  may 
each  have  omitted  something  from  Q;  and  no  motive  re- 
mains for  the  writing  of  these  later  Gospels.  Mr.  Burkitt^ 
has  maintained  that  Q  very  probably  contained  some 
references  to  the  passion;  but  this  position  has  not  com- 
mended itself  to  many,  if  to  any,  other  students. 

Q  was  a  collection  of  sayings.  That  the  content  of  it, 
within  limits,  can  be  made  out  with  some  degree  of 
unanimity  is  indicated  by  the  following  tables.  The 
first  represents  the  content  of  Q  in  Matthew,  as  given  by 
the  five  scholars  whose  names  head  the  five  columns, 
with  additional  statements  in  the  following  columns, 
concerning  the  amount  of  agreement  or  divergence.  The 
second  table  does  the  same  thing  for  the  Q  matter  assigned 
to  the  Gospel  of  Luke  by  the  same  five  investigators. 

DEDUCTIONS    FROM    THE    TABLE 

In  Table  II  the  verses  are  indicated  as  they  stand  in 
Matthew  without  their  parallels  in  Luke  (which  would 
add  nothing  for  our  purpose  here) ,  and  without  indicating 
the  rearrangement  of  order  which  most  if  not  all  of  these 
scholars  attempt  at  various  places.  The  purpose  here  is 
simply  to  present  the  content  of  Q  as  made  out  by  these 
different  men.  Besides  showing  what  each  one  of  them 
assigns  to  Q,  I  have  (in  the  column  headed  ''AH  Five") 
tried  to  show  the  verses  which  all  these  scholars  agree 
in  so  assigning;  and  in  the  next  column  the  verses  assigned 
to  Q  by  three  or  more  out  of  the  five.  In  the  last  two 
columns  I  have  indicated  the  total  number  of  verses  out 

1  In  his  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  and  Earliest  Sources  for 
the   Life  of  Jesus. 


no 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


Eh      fa 


n 

"S 

ffl^M 

» 

^ 

o 

(NN 

Tf          o 

42 
O 

^IM 

!N 

(N 

(N            rH 

10 

"cS 

•*(»-^ 

>* 

o 

CO 

>0 

00            00 

4^ 

o 

H 

1     1 

CO 

Ci' 

IM 

co" 

t-          'd^ 

o  «, 

^-(N'^CO 

CO 

1 

1  -H 
^  1     . 

1 

'^^ 

7        r.-".^^. 

'^ododco 

o 

rHt^(Nt^05 

Noo 

2      ^-^^5 

.            lO     -    .   1 

o^.^.-l 

a 

.^(NNrH 
t^      .     .    1        . 

rHrH'* 

00     .    .  1 

(MtH     .MtOOO 

co' 

.CO-H 

■*C0 

cooio-* 

CO            INOOlO-H 

rtrt,l(rtC^Tt< 

1 

lO-HNNi-l 

1  ^-IN 

rt              1   NCO^ 
1              (N 

tN.rt-- 

o 

'"' 

UO 

COt^ 

(N            <N 

1 

1  ■* 

1 

co" 

1   co"             05" 

N 

CON          -co 
1-1    1        t^     - 

-rft^lNOOjli 

s 

«■'*' 

CO 

1 

CO 

^N(N     -CO'* 
'^     .   1   CO     -    - 

■— ] 

OO     -OGC 

CO 

CO 

d>o 

-C5iOeiOO-H 

«j5 

1      1        - 

1 

o 

N-H 

1 

1 

rt.-i 

C5,H(N     .N-* 

1         w 

t^COM 

eg 

lO 

r>." 

CO            IN 

■* 

IM 

io"co 

1 
IN                >0 

CO 

(N 

(NIN 

Td 

■2 

1 

1 

1      . 

t^           00    1 

O) 

f— 1 

05 

COei 

IN           lOOO 

1 

OO     -   1 

i        r."". 

NOOO 

eo' 

co' 

C0C0O05 

(N05       CO  05 

»-H  ^  Tj< 

CO 

1   — TfCO 

.-<         1   lO 

1       1       1 

1 

1 

1 

h-    1 

CO            (N 

t^OOM 

05 

to 

COlO 

CO            <N 

«i 

1   CO 

c^ 

1 

1   t^            C0"05" 

'^(N 

ow 

^    . 

(N 

J,  1  1     « 

CON          .COCO 

'-'  1 

CO  e 

1 

-N    1   t^    I   CO 

^1            Tt<       .       -JS 

©"go" 

-OS 

.-iNOO 

05 

CHiO^TtN 

.-H       N00«iO 

1  ejc^ 

rt   .-H    .e^    . 

-H(N         I   OICO'* 

^*     . 

N-  1    1 

. 

»   .  c3    .  c3    -a 

-H     -      CO    1      -1 

O'HO'iO'cO 

~-^iO 

.t^'* 

CO 

COCSrt'tCONlOO      -05        IMt^lO-H               1 

rtrt    1   rt-* 

03-1 

in-Hcq 

|0C-Hrt-H(Nei'tO5-H           .NCO'* 

>-5 

1     1   -O 

1 

1 

1 

t^  1 

1              —1 

l^rt^ 

lO 

COt^ 

CO           1-1 

1  lOOOO 

■* 

1  t^ 

<n" 

1 

-H             C0C5" 

V} 

'   IN"*'* 

(N 

t>.ei 

"^  1  J,  1 

.N         1  COCO 

a 

OCO 

o-i 

-H^ 

«  1  '*co 

CO    -     ^^    -   - 

i4C5      INOX>0 

S 

1-1          -.-HM-* 

(NCO 

1  (N 

'^IN 

^^    .  .■* 

1   ^          -COCOTf 

.       O     ... 

.   1 

CO     - 

-   1 

00   .  .  e  c    . 

4<    1        CO     .    .  1 

O-H     .INOIM 

COiO 

-^ 

2® 

CO  ecocoicx 

-O  t^  (N  00  lO  -H 

1     1     1 

1 

(NrH 
1 

1  '^ 

1   Xi^rtMCO 

COrtIN    1   (NCO'I* 
J.            1^ 

t^M^ 

OJ 

"5 

fOt^ 

IN            IN 

g 

OO 

o 

■* 

. 

CO 

2 

1 

OO 

T't^ 

i 

cS 

CO 

1  N 

IN 

^ 

Tji 

t^  1 

W 

(N-HW" 

CO 

-lO 

CO 

lO 

C5               ■* 

'3 

1 

tOrt 

1-1                 1 

^ 

1     1     1 

05 

1 

1 

1 

lO 

1              IN 

oco'to 

J^M'O 

CO       t^ 

2;c5  1 

O           coco"o5 

05*10           Q0"iO*rt" 

M 

III 

M|M(N 

-    1 

1  'l^ 

-HIN          .IN'*'* 
1      -     CO   1     1      . 

o 

CS 

c 

"  C.  -t"  lO 

r.  -1  - 

-ti     ."!t<CCCOM     . 

coco       lNt^C005IN 

<>'      -  X  -r  Tl 

— '  Cl  -M 

M  lO  M  (M 

^^oo 

rtC^         1   M*  CO  CO 

^     «... 

.     .    1 

.1      -     - 

-      1        e)     .    .   1      . 

n 

1   "-^     .C'J  C^l  Lt  CC  CC  C. 

■0-lC5t^ 

-hO  im'm  CO  N  CO  CO  lO  CO  t^ 

COrHI^NuOOXlN 

t^-H"trtTj1rt 

<— 1  rl  ^H 

-0   .'-<ei 

rHrHIN,-l|        .^rH^COCO 

-H^liN     .OICOCOtJi 

-   1     1 

1 

(N 

1 

t~Tt< 

1              CO 

IC-Hr^ 

05 

10 

COIN 

IN            CO 

a 

CS 

.a 

.^ 

:3 

'.            ._■ 

O 

:H.^> 

'? 

'? 

> 

> 

>i 

"S       '>< 

Existence  and  Content  of  Q 


111 


CO 

o 

If: 

to 

Oh.                   10             rt 

U5 

0 

0            t- 

0 

CO 
CO 

7 

to 

c. 

CO    .  1       t^ 
<Nt^3^       CO 

-NCO 
10    i      .      00 

1-1    1   (NCO         1 

1  CO                CO           0 
1-l-H                  (N            IM 

00 

0 

03 
!> 

s 

-co            1 
in  1         t^ 

(NOJtO       CO 

-NCO 
CO     -   1        CO 

-cqco       1 
CO            r- 

0 

CO 
CO 

1 

CO 

l> 

r-l 

50 

1 

in 
1 

CO 

«       0 

•*©                 (N            CO 

-HCO                     1                 1 
II                       to              Th 

(N 

0 
CO 

CO 

1-S 

CO 
CO 

CO 

10 

co' 
1 

CO  e    -If-  1      ^ 

rtCOI^S^COfMr-H^. 

tC^.^.^.odt'?^ 

-00     1    IC  10  rH  Cq  ,-1  10  CO 

e-Hco^(Nco  1  -^^rt 

IN    1      .                 CO              1 
COrtTt"                (N           -H 

00 

c 

10 

COffiOJ          "-< 
C^(NC0            10 

-  -_L    t^  1 
■*t^S^     coco 

-hNCO            .Tt< 

1     1      .      00     . 

iMin-i     c^i-i 

-HC^CO         1   ■* 

0 

a 

1 

Ci                           0 

^  CO                   »— <             CO 

rt  1            in         1 

1   CO                    1              'l* 

to 
in 

1         ^ 

00 

(M°M         1 

COI^N       (M 
-H!NCO         1 

to        0 

■*                 IM            IN 

0 

OS 

D 

'? 

> 

> 

X 

'y 
y 

=3         i       > 

3 

0 

112  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

of  each  chapter,  assigned  to  Q  by  all  five,  and  by  three 
or  more,  respectively.  No  attempt  was  made  to  select 
men  whose  work  would  have  special  tendency  toward 
agreement;  undoubtedly  two  investigators^  might  be 
substituted  for  Wellhausen  and  Wernle,  whose  work 
would  make  the  total  agreement  much  greater  than  it  is 
in  the  present  table. 

The  analysis  of  Wellhausen  is  the  least  elaborate  of  the 
five,  and  that  of  Wernle  is  almost  as  simple.  The  other 
three  show  more  disposition  to  select  out  the  verse  or  part 
of  the  verse  which,  occuring  in  the  midst  of  Q  material, 
should  nevertheless  be  assigned  to  some  other  source. 
Weiss  adds  a  question  mark  to  several  of  his  sections, 
but  these  have  been  included  in  the  table.  All  the  stu- 
dents say  that  not  the  same  certainty  attaches  to  all  the 
sections  which  they  have  included.  Sir  John  Hawkins, 
especially,  says  he  does  not  consider  his  work  a  "recon- 
struction of  Q,"  which,  with  Mr.  Burkitt,  he  considers  a 
task  beyond  the  data  at  our  command. 

According  to  these  five  scholars,  Q  has  furnished  a 
source  for  Matthew  in  eleven  chapters.  According  to 
three  out  of  the  five,  Q  is  found  in  sixteen  chapters. 
Harnack  and  Hawkins  agree  in  finding  one  verse  each  in 
chaps.  XV,  xvii,  and  xix.  Weiss  alone  finds  two-thirds  of 
a  verse  in  xxi.  Among  the  five,  they  find  Q  in  twenty 
chapters.  The  only  chapters  in  which  Q  is  not  found  by 
any  of  them  are  i,  ii,  xiv,  xvi,  xx,  xxvi,  xxvii,  and  xxviii. 

The  most  conspicuous  absences  of  Q  from  Matthew  are 
in  his  first  two  chapters,  in  his  chapters  dealing  with  the 
Passion  (chaps,  xxvi-xxvii),  and  in  his  story  of  the  empty 
grave  and  the  resurrection  appearances  (chap,  xxviii). 

'  E.g.,  Stanton:  see  his  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  Part  II;  and 
Robinson:    see  his  Study  of  the  Gospels. 


Existence  and  Content  op  Q  113 

Concerning  the  absence  of  Q  from  chaps,  xiv,  xvi,  and 
XX,  and  its  practically  negligible  presence  in  chaps,  xv, 
xvii,  xix,  and  xxi,  it  will  be  observed  that  these  chapters 
do  not  deal  exclusively  with  narrative  material.  Their 
content  is,  in  brief,  the  death  of  the  Baptist,  the  return  of 
the  disciples,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  walking 
on  the  sea,  the  dispute  about  hand-washing,  the  Canaan- 
itish  woman,  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  the  demand 
of  the  Pharisees  for  a  sign,  the  confession  of  Peter,  the 
demands  for  discipleship,  the  transfiguration,  the  healing 
of  the  epileptic  boy,  the  prediction  of  Jesus'  sufferings,  the 
temple-tax,  the  strife  about  rank,  the  strange  exorcist, 
the  speech  about  offenses  and  about  the  rescue  of  the  lost, 
the  rules  for  reconciliation  with  a  brother  and  for  forgive- 
ness, the  parable  of  the  Evil  Steward,  the  dispute  about 
marriage  and  divorce,  the  blessing  of  the  children,  the 
danger  of  riches,  the  parable  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vine- 
yard, the  second  prediction  of  sufferings,  the  demand  of 
the  sons  of  Zebedee,  the  healing  of  Bartimaeus,  the  entry 
into  Jerusalem,  the  offense  of  the  scribes  and  priests,  the 
cursing  of  the  fig  tree,  the  purification  of  the  temple,  the 
parables  of  the  Dissimilar  Sons  and  the  Evil  Vineyard- 
Keepers. 

So  far  as  the  narrative  material  in  these  chapters  is 
concerned,  it  is  derived  from  Mark.  Of  the  discourse 
material,  some  is  connected  with  the  narrative  in  Mark, 
and  taken,  like  the  narrative,  from  him.^  Other  passages 
of  discourse  material,  like  the  demands  of  discipleship 
(Mt  xvi,  24-28),  not  closely  connected  with  Marcan  narra- 
tive, yet  apparently  taken  from  Mark,   contain  verses 

1  Cf .  especially  the  prediction  of  sufferings  connected  with  the  con- 
fession of  Peter  (Mt  xvi,  1.3-23) ;  the  speech  about  Elijah,  connected  with 
the  transfiguration  (Mt  xvii,  9-13) ;  the  speech  about  true  greatness,  con- 
nected with  the  request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  (Mt  xx,  20-28). 


114  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

elsewhere  duplicated  in  Matthew.  For  these  verses,  some 
of  which  Luke  takes  from  Mark,  he  has  duplicates  else- 
where. Since  these  duplicates  in  both  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  elsewhere  closely  connected  with  Q  material,  and 
are  in  their  other  connections  apparently  uninfluenced 
by  Mark,  it  appears  that  in  these  chapters,  where  Matthew 
forsakes  Q,  he  has  nevertheless  embodied  certain  material 
from  Mark  which  originally  stood  alike  in  Mark  and  Q. 

Other  instances  of  this  kind  occur  in  Mt  xviii,  1-5, 
the  strife  about  rank;  in  xviii,  6-9,  about  offenses;  and  in 
XX,  24-28,  about  true  greatness.  These  verses  represent 
passages  in  which,  according  to  Sanday's  statement,^ 
Mark  and  Q  "overlapped";  or,  according  to  other  stu- 
dents (notably  Mr.  Streeter  in  the  same  volume),  Mark 
also  copied  from  Q.  As  we  are  here  interested,  not  in  the 
relation  of  Mark  to  Q,  but  only  in  the  content  of  the  latter 
as  it  is  found  in  Matthew,  we  may  go  back  to  our  state- 
ment that  Matthew  has  combined  his  material  from  Q 
in  his  chaps,  iii-viii  and  x-xii,  and  practically  (if  not 
quite)  forsaken  him  in  chaps,  xiii-xxii. 

Going  back  once  more  to  Table  II,  the  largest  content 
ascribed  to  Q  is  given  by  Wernle:  three  hundred  and  two 
verses  (including  a  few  parts  of  verses) .  The  next  largest 
are  from  Weiss  and  Wellhausen,  two  hundred  and  forty- 
eight  and  two  hundred  and  fifty-six  verses  respectively. 
Harnack  and  Hawkins  assign  only  one  hundred  and  ninety 
and  one  hundred  and  ninety-four.-  But  the  facts  that 
out  of  the  largest  content  ascribed  by  any  one  of  the 
five  students  (three  hundred  and  two  by  Wernle),  two 
hundred  and  eight  of  the  same  verses  are  likewise  assigned 

'  Oxford  Studies,  p.  xxil. 

2  Hawkins'  list  comes  from  his  Horae  Synopticae.  In  his  essay  in  Oxford 
.•itudies  he  assigns  a  considerably  larger  content  to  Q. 


Existence  and  Content  of  Q  115 

by  two  others,  and  that  out  of  the  smallest  content  (one 
hundred  and  ninety  by  Harnack),  one  hundred  and  one 
are  likewise  assigned  by  all  five,  show  that  as  to  the  nucleus 
of  Q,  including  more  than  half  of  it  according  to  Harnack 
and  one-third  of  it  according  to  Wernle,  there  is  prac- 
tically no  dispute. 

Table  III  will  show  the  results  of  the  work  of  the 
same  five  scholars  as  to  the  Q  material  in  Luke. 

DEDUCTIONS    FROM    TABLE    III 

Table  III,  containing  the  content  ascribed  to  Q  as  it 
is  found  in  Luke,  by  the  same  five  scholars  mentioned 
above,  discloses  some  interesting  results  when  compared 
with  Table  II  (pp.  110-11).  As  was  the  case  with  Q  in 
Matthew,  the  smallest  total  is  assigned  by  Harnack. 
That  he  finds  one  hundred  and  ninety  verses  (including  a 
few  parts  of  verses)  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke  indicates 
that  he  has  limited  his  Q  pretty  closely  to  the  duplicate 
matter  in  both  Gospels.  Hawkins'  results  are  very  close 
in  this  respect  to  Harnack's  (one  hundred  and  ninety-four 
Q  verses  in  Matthew  and  one  hundred  and  ninety-two 
in  Luke),  and  indicate  the  same  basis  of  computation. 
Wellhausen  finds  Q  in  two  hundred  and  fifty-six  verses 
of  Matthew,  and  in  only  two  hundred  and  ten  of  Luke. 

Both  tables  show  that  Wellhausen's  analysis  of  Q  is 
much  less  elaborate  than  that  of  any  of  the  other  students. 
Since  the  number  of  Q  verses  which  he  finds  in  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  considerably  larger  than  that  which 
Harnack  and  Hawkins  find,  the  disparity  between  his 
Q  matter  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke  may  be  accounted  for 
by  his  willingness  to  go  farther  beyond  the  duplicate 
material  in  those  two  Gospels  for  his  Q.  His  two  hundred 
and  ten  Q  verses  ascribed  to  Luke  are  not  greatly  in 


116 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


•SS 

1 

.  tn 

TfCOt^ 

CO 

Tf  M 

O 

i< 

05 

o 

i*CO 

o-?l 

1-1 IM 

cq 

CO 

M 

^^ 

.a« 

•  > 

rHfflCO 

05 

t^ 

CI 

O 

N 

Ot-^ 

^fe 

cc 

lO    1 

'   1      - 

^03  CO 

.CO 

N 

;^ 

1 

N 

•-0 

1  CON^ 

CO  COO 

1 

O  ,, 

r>. 

CO   1     -t^ 

1    -  1 

•*    - 

to 

t> 

CD 

f^ 

OClO 

1 

NC5N';* 

N'*-hOS 

N05 

N 

I"* 

t^ 

rHM 

?] 

-NO    1 

NCOlOO 

-N 

,k 

rt     n 

.    1 

o-^ 

O    .  1  » 

-   1      -  1 

r-i      ,. 

CO 

to 

.M(N 

C-H 

to    . 

NCCC5     - 

OCOtOOO 

NOOlCN 

1-* 

©rH     1 

'^?5 

1  CJ 

-NCO-* 

rtCOTt<iC 

1  NCO   1 

^■  - 

1    1  o 

1 

t^  1 

55 

1 

00 

CD 

1  CO 

t^rHN 

ON 

'^ 

N 

'"' 

^ 

TtH-^ 

«o 

1 

1    . 

ON^ 

d 

rtC-1 

NTfiO 

1  ^ 

.  1 

05N1« 

N 

COdtttO 

CO    1 

C0C5tO 

E 

1  NCC 

to' 

'-'NCOTt* 

.CO-* 

o 

to    -  1 

^  .  1 

o 

p 

01  ■* 

-O-H 

.■* 

-HT»<^Tj« 

fO-*N 

CO 

<j; 

-H     1 

co-H^: 

CON 

-HNM'*<    ■ 

1    COtJI 

1 

1  r- 

1 

1 

N 

Tt< 

t^M-* 

'^ 

N 

o 

N 

CO 

lO 

■* 

i 

^"^o 

lO 

N 

r- 

M 

c^ 

«M 

COlOO 

1'^ 

1 

_2 

1 

1 

to    . 

1     -  1 

X   1 

to 

t^ 

"3 

1 

00 

N(0 

NCOOO 

N-* 

N 

1—* 

to 

C4 

1m 

N'^lO 

.CO 

1 

.-H       o> 

M    . 

O    1 

-   1      - 

1— (     . 

-t 

to 

^ 

05^    1 

d 

to  to 

-ON 

NOCO 

NO 

N 

o^ 

1  -^ 

■*N"0 

rHCOO 

1   CO 

1 

1    1  o 

1 

t^  1 

1 

1 

00 

to 

1  CO 

t^coc^ 

N 

O-H 

N 

N 

'^ 

'^ 

CO  1-1 

1 

CO 

•  t^ 

^^'^5 

^-cod 

,  d 

T)I 

w 

00 

-N 

i*C^ 

-NCOCO 

Nco-* 

J>«| 

.CO 

o  . 

'-•  1 

'^     -   1      - 

CO    1 

CO     . 

00 

*q3 

1 

rHffl 

1  ^ 

T*  to  Olio 

1  ^"»N 

N  oo  O  N  t^ 

»— 1 

t^ 

1    N 

COIN 

l^NCO 

Ococoo 

.NCO    1  N 

1 

-^     a 

t-      1 

O-H       . 

0!    1      .1 

-^    1      -   1 

^     . 

to 

to 

.m-t 

-ccicto   -to 

-lOtOCON 

.NTt<-H 

NlC-frHtOlO        ^ 

05.^    1 

COi-lC 

CO-t 

"ti^NCOlO 

OONCOiO 

1  NCO     .NCO  O     .       1 

'-» 

1      1   t^ 

1 

t-  1 

1 

1 

00 

1— 1 

1  CO 

t^^Tt* 

ION 

N 

N 

^ 

"^ 

COrH 

OCX 

1 

dciiCN-H     .      (Mco" 

,  ;5 

U} 

rt(N 

.N 

-NNCO'^iOrH    .rltiO 

1  CO 

c 

w 

.  1 

O    - 

'*!-!- 

COtH     .   1 

-'"J, 

t>. 

t^ 

MO 

CiOi^". 

|_tO 

'T'OtO-^rttO    1  COO^ 

SSN'* 

N 

1— ( 

3 

t^       1  ■* 

1   NCC 

Jr-HNCO-^^N    1  ■*lO 

O     .CO 

1 

t*"0 

-1    p  1 

to    .  1 

Ot^   1 

O     .   1      .    . 

-N-o     -    - 

.tH      - 

o 

.n'>^t^ 

-O- 

CO    -N^    -tOC0NC5Tj<    .COffitOOONO 

N 

-r- 1 

1       1    t^ 

WrHK 

1  o^ 

t^  1 

N'*rHNCOCOTl<OCOCOTt<lOIN 
1                               1                       O 

^- 

o    . 

.CO 

t^-COi-l 

'^ 

ION 

N 

N 

N 

"^ 

Tt^-H 

^ 

05 

iC 

N 

s 

1 

CO 

O 

3 

1 

00 

1 

03 

n 

Si 

CO 

. 

to 

O 

•* 

U5(N 

o 

■* 

N 

rtH 

CO 

N 

"3 

Nr-l     1 

N 

CO 

1 

1 

1 

s 

1    1  o 

1 

1 

1 

N 

>* 

to 

-H^M 

C5 

N 

CO 

lO 

. 

oto'dto 

-<"o>doo 

t' 

1 

t^          -         . 

CO 

to 

--^NCO-* 

COCO'^lO 

-co 

1        <N«5 

1  1 

i-H      ^ 

Tf  t  .  1    .  . 

1     -  1     - 

^  . 

t^ 

00 

0<X>r-> 

O    -N  N  r*  t^  CO  lO  ■* 

N'^fNCO 

N05 

NO 

»— t 

50         1  M    1 

Tf^"— 'CO 

COON 

.    1    ^NCOtJI 

NCO'^iO 

-N 

1  CO 

1 

^        O    1    J3 

1    .  1 

-oC>   1      -  1     . 

y*    1 

to 

o 

.w^^t^iooooc 

t^-o^ 

•^     -tOOffiNNOCOOrt 

33  N  00  O  N  •* 

r- 1 

w 

Oi-H      -t-lCOTjH-HC^ 

'-0t^C^NTt,H(NMTt<'O-^C0':*<lOlOINC0     -CO 

t^   . 

1    1  I^ 

1 

-  1 

1 

1 

X 

^H 

1   CO 

t^rtrt 

NN 

N 

N 

'"' 

"^ 

-*r-l 

a 

J3 

._• 

:3 

> 

.■•r'      1 

:3.«*> 

> 

^  K*       1 

o 

> 

>> 

y. 

X 

»< 

X 

X 

X 

1 

Existence  and  Content  of  Q 


117 


el  S 

.S  v 

dS 

'^ 

'.'^  '. 

o 

^H 

I^ 

el 

.-.  05 

■  > 

■* 

o 

0-. 

00 

;^fe 

C«5I>(^ 

t- 

(MINCO 

o ., 

05 

CDC0"iO 

-H 

-NCO 

o 

^     -   1 

IM 

.TtrH 

MNCO 

'■to    • 

'^ 

•  c*  • 

Ttl 

CO 

^ 

o 

'£ 

CO 

00 

^ 

<N 

O 

t> 

» 

M 

1 

lO 

d 

M 

>o 

^ 

Li 

!N 

■  t^   • 

Ol 

2 

f 

•    1      • 
•(N     • 

S 

1 

CoVrt* 

1 

1-1 

M 

50  to  CO 

to  : 

■* 

1-1 

1   (MCO 

t^ 

10     .    . 

lO     .lO 

H 

.Tjirt 

>-<    -r-l 

J 

l-j 

(NNCO 
1 

-  ■  1 

CO     -fJ 

n 

r-(       -C^l 

<si 

H 

d 

CDt-,"W 

<N 

S 

-C^M 

OJ 

c3 

■*     .    . 

'.  o 

-CDlO 

.     .  CO 

w 

COC^IM 

d 

05 

d 

o 

o3 

^ 

lO 

■  t^ 

IN 

CO 

•■M 

'« 

1 

•    1 

^ 

o 
fa 

:- 

COt-'iO 

JJl 

<N(MCO 

^ 

COCOtJh" 

o 

d 

E-i 
c3 

.(NCO          ■       _ 

■*  -  -    •  S 

>    2 

5 

a 

".^=^"  :«« 

3 

'^ 

•  (Ne- 

J 

u 

•      ^ 

05 

■rf 

+3 

& 

^  •   * 

:     o 

CS 

^ 

'? 

id  J:3     c-i 

o 

x 

X  X  > 

'•            ' 

118  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

excess  of  the  number  ascribed  by  Harnack  and  Hawkins 
to  both  Luke  and  Matthew.  He  gives  to  Luke  twenty 
more  Q  verses,  and  to  Matthew  sixty-six  more,  than 
Harnack.  Of  these  sixty-six,  he  may  consider  thirty 
to  be  duplicates  in  Matthew  and  Luke  (since  what  consti- 
tutes derivation  from  a  common  source  must  always  be 
matter  of  opinion).  The  other  thirty-six  verses  he 
assigns  to  Q  in  Matthew,  tho  lacking  duplicates  in  Luke, 
on  the  ground  of  their  general  characteristics.  The 
habits  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  respectively,  in  their 
treatment  of  Mark,  render  it  practically  certain  that 
Matthew  would  feel  less  at  liberty  to  omit  Q  material 
than  Luke.  Wernle's  assignments  (three  hundred  and 
two  Q  verses  to  Matthew  and  two  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  to  Luke)  may  be  explained  in  the  same  way. 

Somewhat  more  difficult  to  understand  is  Weiss's 
assignment  of  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  Q  verses  to 
Matthew  against  only  one  hundred  and  seventy-four  to 
Luke.  He  has  here  in  common  sixteen  fewer  verses  than 
Harnack  and  Hawkins  assign  in  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke  from  Q.  But  he  also  assigns  to  Matthew  seventy- 
four  Q  verses  not  paralleled  in  the  Q  material  which  he 
assigns  to  Luke.  The  difference  goes  back  again  to  the 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  degree  of  literary  similarity 
which  must  be  taken  to  indicate  a  common  source;  as 
also  to  Weiss's  interest  in  the  special  source  (S)  of  Luke. 
If  we  deduct  from  Weiss's  Q  in  Matthew  the  twenty- 
eight  verses  after  which  he  places  an  interrogation  mark, 
this  will  leave  him  with  only  forty-six  Q  verses  in  Matthew 
unduplicated  in  Luke.  This  is  only  ten  more  than  Well- 
hausen  has. 

All  five  scholars  find  Q  material  in  nine  of  Luke's 
chapters  (against  eleven  of  Matthew's).     Three  find  it  in 


Existence  and  Content  of  Q  119 

fourteen  chapters.  Chaps,  iii  and  iv  in  Matthew  corre- 
spond with  the  same  chapters  in  Luke.  Harnack  finds 
in  Matthew's  two  chapters  seventeen  Q  verses,  and  in 
Luke's  two  chapters,  eighteen.  Hawkins  finds  fourteen  in 
Matthew's  two,  and  fifteen  in  Luke's.  Matthew's  chaps, 
v-viii  (Sermon  on  the  Mount)  contain  according  to 
Harnack  sixty-six  Q  verses,  according  to  Hawkins  sixty- 
eight.  To  these  three  chapters  of  Matthew,  chap,  vi 
of  Luke  forms  a  partial  parallel.  It  contains,  according 
to  Harnack,  twenty-six,  and  according  to  Hawkins 
twenty-eight  Q  verses,  parallel  to  that  number  of 
Matthew's  sixty-six.  Of  the  remaining  forty  Q  verses  in 
Matthew  (chaps,  v-viii),  Luke  has  in  other  connections, 
in  chaps,  xi,  xii,  xiii,  xiv,  and  xvi,  thirty-four  parallel  Q 
verses.  All  but  six  of  the  verses  assigned  by  Hawkins  and 
Harnack  to  Q  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  are  therefore 
paralleled  by  Q  material  in  Luke.  But  of  this  Q  material 
in  Luke  more  than  half  is  scattered  about  in  different 
chapters,  in  marked  contrast  to  its  concentration  in 
Matthew.  This  is  perhaps  the  best  single  illustration 
of  the  fact,  often  mentioned,  that  Luke  blends  his  Q 
material  with  material  from  other  sources,  while  Matthew 
inserts  it  in  blocks. 

It  does  not  appear  upon  the  surface  why  the  same  five 
investigators  should  not  reach  results  concerning  Q  in 
Luke  with  the  same  consensus  as  concerning  Q  in  Mat- 
thew. It  is  perhaps  explained  by  the  fact  that  Luke's 
blending  of  his  material  from  different  sources  and  his 
freer  treatment  of  it  render  Q  less  identifiable  with 
him.  If,  however,  Wernle,  Wellhausen,  and  Weiss  be 
disregarded,  and  attention  be  paid  only  to  the  lists  of 
Hawkins  and  Harnack,  these  latter  lists  will  be  found  to 
agree  as  closely  in  their  identification  of  Q  material  in 


120  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Luke  as  in  Matthew.  This  merely  shows  that  we  are 
on  firm  ground  in  the  identification  of  Q,  so  long  as  we 
restrict  ourselves  closely  to  the  duplicate  passages  in 
Matthew  and  Luke,  and  require  a  reasonably  strict  agree- 
ment before  admitting  a  common  source.  It  is  when  we 
leave  this  duplicate  material,  to  extend  the  limits  of  Q 
beyond  it,  that  the  uncertainties  begin. 

THE  NECESSITY  FOR  A  FURTHER  EXTENSION  OF  Q 

Yet  the  presence  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  especially 
in  the  former,  of  much  sayings-material  which  is  not  only 
imbedded  in  Q  matter,  but  has  all  the  characteristics  of 
Q;  the  presence  of  "translation  variants";  the  natural 
assumption  that  even  if  Matthew  and  Luke  had  before 
them  the  same  identical  copy  of  Q,  they  would  not  agree 
entirely  in  the  amount  of  material  they  would  respectively 
quote  from  it;  and  the  desire  to  assign  as  much  as  seems 
reasonable  to  this  source  before  positing  another,  all  lead 
us  to  the  task  of  a  further  determination  of  the  content 
of  Q.  This  further  determination  issues  in  an  analysis  of 
QJjlJta-QMt  and  QLk. 


PART  II 
ANALYSIS  OF  Q  INTO  QMt  AND  QLk 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  ANALYSIS  OF  Q 

Q  ORIGINALLY  AN  ARAMAIC  DOCUMENT,  USED  IN  GREEK 
TRANSLATIONS   BY   MATTHEW   AND    LUKE 

The  starting-point  of  a  further  determination  of  the 
content  of  Q  is  the  fact  that  Matthew  and  Luke  seem  to 
have  taken  their  duplicate  matter  from  a  Greek  document, 
but  that  this  Greek  document  was  a  translation  from  the 
Aramaic.  If  Matthew  and  Luke  had  been  independently 
translating  from  an  Aramaic  document,  they  could  not 
have  hit  so  generally  upon  the  same  order  of  words, 
especially  where  many  other  arrangements  would  have 
done  as  well  (and  occasionally  better),  nor  would  they 
have  agreed  in  the  translation  of  an  Aramaic  word  by 
the  same  unusual  Greek  word,  as  notably  in  the  ctti- 
obaiov  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  The  Q  they  used  was  a 
Greek  document. 

But  Jesus  spoke  Aramaic,  not  Greek;  and  if  Q  is 
Palestinian,  and  as  early  as  60-65  or  70,  it  would  be 
strange  for  it  to  have  been  written  in  any  language  except 
that  which  Jesus  spoke.  Mark  had  an  Aramaic  tradi- 
tion; and  tho  he  probably  wrote  in  Greek  he  preserved 
many  Aramaic  words  and  expressions;  Q  as  found  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  has  no  Aramaic  words;  this  seems 
to  be  explicable  only  upon  the  supposition  that  though 
the  original  of  it  was  in  Aramaic,  Matthew  and  Luke 
knew  it  only  in  its  Greek  form. 

The  hypothesis  of  an  Aramaic  original  for  Q  is  rendered 
practically  certain  by  some  of  the  variations  that  occur 

123 


124  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

between  Matthew's  and  Luke's  versions  of  it.  The 
clearest  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  speech  against 
the  Pharisees.  Matthew  reads,  Kadapiaov  -jrpoJTOP  to  euros 
Tov  iroTrjpiov.  Luke  reads,  ifKrjv  ra  evovra  bore  ekerjfxo- 
avvr]v.  One  of  these  Greek  clauses  would  be  as  difficult 
to  derive  from  the  other,  or  both  of  them  from  the 
same  Greek  original,  as  would  be  the  English  translation 
of  the  words.  The  meaning  of  Luke's  is  far  from  clear. 
In  an  Aramaic  original,  however,  Matthew's  verb  might 
have  read  15"  ,  while  Luke's  might  have  read  IDT .  A 
mere  stroke  of  the  pen,  if  the  saying  originally  stood  in 
Aramaic,  explains  a  variation  which  cannot  be  explained 
at  all  if  the  saying  was  originally  in  Greek.  This  state- 
ment, however,  will  apply  only  if  the  Aramaic  was  written 
and  not  merely  spoken;  for  the  two  letters  so  alike  in 
appearance  are  not  particularly  similar  in  sound. 

Tho  the  above  is  the  simplest  and  clearest  instance, 
others  of  the  same  sort  are  not  wanting.  In  Matthew's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  Jesus  says,  "So  persecuted  they  the 
prophets  which  were  before  you";  while  in  the  corre- 
sponding passage  in  Luke's  Sermon  on  the  Plain  he  says, 
"In  the  same  manner  their  fathers  treated  the  prophets." 
Matthew's  phrase  (v.  12),  rous  irpo  vpcov,  and  Luke's 
(vi,  23),  ol  Trarepes  avrcov,  are  equivalents,  respectively, 
of  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  phrases  for  "your  ancestors" 
and  "their  ancestors."  But  whereas  the  two  Greek 
phrases  look  nothing  alike  and  could  not  be  mistaken  for 
one  another,  the  difference  in  the  Aramaic  again  reduces 
itself  to  the  difference  in  one  letter  between  the  endings 
*p  and  "n.  For  Matthew's  saying  (x,  12),  aaTcicTaade 
avTTjv  (rrjv  olKlav)  Luke  reads  (x,  5),  Xe7ere '  elprjur] 
Tw  o'Ikco  tovtco.  Here  Luke  preserves  the  wording  of  the 
Aramaic  greeting,  "Peace  be  unto  you,"  while  Matthew 


Analysis  of  Q  125 

says,  "Greet  the  house."  The  form  which  Luke  gives 
of  the  greeting  is  that  which  is  used  in  Yiddish  at  the 
present  time — *?|b/-bl2J,  "Peace  to  you,"  equivalent  to  our 
"good  morning."  That  this  is  what  underlay  the  tradi- 
tion in  Matthew  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  he  goes  on 
to  say,  "If  the  house  is  worthy,  your  peace  shall  abide 
upon  it;  but  if  it  is  unworthy,  your  peace  shall  return  to 
you." 

The  very  peculiar  Greek  used  by  both  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  the  saying  about  excommunication  {d-Kociv 
Tvav  ■Kov-qpov  Kad^  VfjLoJp  in  Mt  v,  11,  and  eK^aXojcnu  to 
ovofia  vjjLoop  cos  -Kovrjpbv  in  Lk  vi,  22)  seems  to  go  back  to 
the  one  Aramaic  phrase  for  giving  one  a  bad  name.  In 
the  speech  against  the  Pharisees  Matthew  (xxiii,  25) 
says,  "Ye  cleanse  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  dish  but 
inwardly  they  [the  cup  and  platter]  are  full  of  greed  and 
baseness."  Luke  makes  much  better  sense  by  reading 
(xi,  39),  "Ye  cleanse  the  outside  of  cup  and  platter,  but 
inwardly  ye  are  full  of  greed,"  etc.  If  it  be  assumed  that 
the  present  tense  of  the  verb  "to  cleanse"  was  represented 
in  Aramaic  by  the  participle  (which  would  be  the  usual 
construction),  and  that  the  second  person  pronoun  stood 
with  it  in  the  first  clause  but  was  not  repeated  in  the 
second  (as  would  also  be  natural  in  the  Aramaic),  Mat- 
thew's change  of  the  verb  in  the  second  clause,  from  the 
second  person  to  the  third,  and  his  consequent  use  of  "cup 
and  dish"  as  the  subject  of  it,  are  easily  explained;  since 
the  participle  carries  in  itself  no  distinction  between 
second  and  third  person,  and  the  plural  form  would  fit 
equally  the  "ye"  and  the  "they."  Instances  such  as 
these  (I  owe^thern.  all  to  Wellhausen)^  seem  to  prove  con- 
clusively  (JiiHcher  says   "beyond  a  doubt")   that,   not 

»  Einleitung,  pp.  IG-IS. 


126  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

merely  an  Aramaic  oral  tradition,  but  an  Aramaic  docu- 
ment lies  behind  the  Greek  Q  used  by  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

methods  of  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  IN  THEIR  USE  OF  Q 

Upon  the  hypothesis  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used 
essentially  the  same  text  of  Q,  an  elaborate  treatment  of 
their  respective  use  of  that  document  is  called  for  to  show 
which  of  them,  in  instances  where  they  differ,  is  to  be 
charged  with  the  alterations,  and  to  assign  the  reasons  for 
those  alterations.  Two  scholars,  Harnack  in  his  Sayings 
of  Jesus  and  Wernle  in  his  Synoptische  Frage,  have  made 
such  an  analysis,  with  the  thoroness  characteristic  of 
them.  The  writer  has  studied  these  analyses  carefully, 
and  upon  the  basis  of  them  and  of  such  study  of  the  texts 
as  they  suggested,  made  his  own  analysis.  But  upon  the 
hypothesis  of  Q  as  originally  an  Aramaic  document,  used 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  in  Greek  translations  going  back 
to  different  Aramaic  texts,  such  an  analysis  becomes 
superfluous,  because  superseded  by  the  analysis  of  Q  into 
the  two  recensions,  QMt  and  QLk. 

THE   ANALYSIS    OF   Q    INTO    QMT    AND    QLK 

If  Q  was  originally  an  Aramaic  document,  used  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  in  Greek  translations  going  back  to 
different  copies  of  the  Aramaic  original,  it  is  fair  to  assume 
that  these  two  translations  would  have  had  different 
histories.  Q  would  always  be  growing,  by  the  aid  of  oral 
tradition;  and  if  Q  was  written  before  Mark,  there  was 
ample  time,  say  twenty-five  years  at  least,  before  it  was 
used  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  for  the  two  recensions,  cir- 
culating in  different  communities  and  perhaps  originally 
shaped  to  suit  the  needs  of  different  readers,  to  acquire 


Analysis  of  Q  127 

many  dissimilar  features.  Not  only  would  the  same 
saying  in  many  instances  become  changed  to  meet  the 
varying  need,  or  to  adapt  itself  to  what  was  considered 
a  better  tradition,  but  many  things  would  be  included 
in  either  recension  which  were  not  included  in  the  other. 
Matthew  will  thus  have  had  a  recension  of  Q  which  we 
may  designate  by  the  sign  QMt,  and  Luke  one  which  we 
may  call  QLk. 

The  following  pages  represent  an  attempt  to  determine 
the  content  of  Q,  as  that  is  represented  in  both  Matthew 
and  Luke.^  Of  the  sections  of  Matthew  and  Luke  exam- 
ined, some  are  marked  QMt,  some  QLk,  and  some  merely 
Q.  By  this  it  is  not  meant  that  Matthew  and  Luke  each 
had  a  document  Q,  and  besides  this  a  document  QMt  or 
QLk,  and  that  they  took  now  from  one  and  now  from  the 
other.  But  where  the  wording  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is 
identical,  or  so  closely  similar  that  the  variations  can  be 
easily  explained  as  changes  made  by  Matthew  or  Luke, 
the  material  is  assigned  simply  to  Q.  But  where  the 
variations  are  too  great,  much  greater  for  example  than 
any  changes  that  have  been  made  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
or  by  either  one  of  them  where  they  are  taking  their 
logian  material  from  Mark,  the  material  is  assigned  to 
QMt  and  QLk.  Reasons  for  the  assignment  to  QMt  or 
to  QLk  instead  of  to  simple  Q  are  given  in  each  case 
seeming  to  require  them.  The  sum  of  all  passages 
assigned  to  any  form  of  Q  will  constitute  the  total  content 
of  Q,  so  far  as  it  is  contained  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 
This  total  content  will  be  somewhat  larger  than  the  con- 
tent that  could  be  assigned  to  Q  without  the  hypothesis 
of  QMt  and  QLk,  since  by  this  hypothesis  many  sections 

1  Effort  will  be  made  later  to  determine  the  extent  of  QMt  and  QLk 
by  themselves. 


w 


128  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

will  be  sufficiently  alike  to  be  assigned  to  Q  (QMt  and 
QLk)  which  otherwise  would  have  to  be  ascribed  to 
different  sources.^ 

I  The  writer  began  the  following  examination  with  the  intention  of 
assigning  to  Q  only,  and  rejecting  all  passages  not  showing  sufficient  agree- 
ment to  warrant  such  assignment.  He  found  this  task  so  difficult,  involv- 
ing the  rejection  of  so  many  passages  which  did  not  apparently  belong 
to  Q  but  which  nevertheless  showed  unmistakable  signs  of  literary  rela- 
tion, that  he  adopted  the  theory  (suggested  but  not  worked  out  in  the 
introduction  to  Bacon's  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story)  of  QMt  and  QLk. 


CHAPTER  II 

Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  the  DOUBLE  TRADITION 
OF  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE 

THE    PREACHING   OF   JOHN   THE    BAPTIST 
(Mt  iii,  76-10;  Lk  iii,  76-9) 

This  section  is  universally  ascribed  to  Q.  In  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  it  contains  sixty -three  words;  in  Luke's 
sixty-four.  These  are  identical  in  the  two  Gospels, 
except  for  Luke's  addition  of  /cal  at  the  beginning  of  his 
9th  verse,  his  plural  (Kapirovs)  where  Matthew  has  the 
singular,  and  his  substitution  of  ap^rjade  for  Matthew's 
86^r]T€.  The  parallelism  begins  in  the  middle  of  the 
7th  verse  of  each  Gospel;  the  first  part  of  the  verse 
in  each  case  evidently  being  supplied  by  the  evangelist. 
Matthew  says  John's  remark  was  addressed  to  the  Phari- 
sees and  Sadducees.  With  his  customary  indifference 
to  class  distinctions  among  the  Jews,  Luke  represents 
the  words  as  being  addressed  to  all  those  who  came 
for  baptism.  They  do  not  seem  appropriate  to  candi- 
dates for  baptism,  whether  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  or 
others.  Luke  uses  some  form  of  the  verb  apxoo  with 
the  infinitive  \eyeLv  eight  times  as  against  Matthew's 
twice.  As  it  seems  here  to  have  no  advantage  over 
So/ceo)  it  might  be  safe  to  suppose  that  the  substitution 
was  made  unintentionally,  and  from  the  influence  of 
the  recollection  of  similar  usage  in  other  parts  of  Luke's 
Gospel.  The  first  half  of  vs.  7  in  each  Gospel  should 
be  assigned  to  the  evangelists;  the  remainder  of  the 
section  to  Q. 

129 


130  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  messianic  proclamation  of  the  baptist 
(Mt  iii,  11-12;  Lk  iii,  16-17) 
Matthew's  vs.  11  and  Luke's  vs.  16  are  closely  parallel 
to  Mark  i,  7-8.  But  they  are  still  more  closely  parallel 
with  each  other,  and  contain  common  deviations  from 
Mark  which  cannot  be  explained  upon  the  supposition 
that  they  are  taken  from  the  latter.  The  wording  in  the 
two  Gospels,  for  twenty-six  consecutive  words,  is  identical, 
except  for  Luke's  omission  of  /cat  in  his  vs.  17,  and  his 
consequent  change  of  verbs  from  the  finite  to  the  infini- 
tive mood.     This  section  is  universally  assigned  to  Q. 


THE  TEMPTATION 
(Mt  iv,  3-11;  Lk  iv,  3-13) 
The  whole  story  of  the  temptation  as  told  by  Matthew 
and  Luke  includes  the  two  verses  of  each  Gospel  which 
immediately  precede  the  section  here  specified.  These 
verses  are  not  included  here  because  they  seem  to  the 
writer  to  be  taken  by  Matthew  and  Luke  from  Mark  and 
not  from  Q.  The  common  avoidance  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  of  Mark's  statement  that  Jesus  was  "with  the  wild 
beasts,"  and  their  common  substitution  of  StdjSoXos 
for  Mark's  craraj^as,  would  point  toward  their  exclusive 
use  of  Q  and  their  avoidance  of  Mark  in  these  verses. 
On  the  other  hand,  Matthew  and  Luke  use  very  different 
phraseology  to  express  their  common  idea  of  the  hunger 
of  Jesus  (Luke  saying  ovk  ecjiayeu  ovbkv  ev  raZs  rjfxepais 
eKelvais,  Kal  awTeXeadei.acoi'  avrwv  eweluaaeu,  while  Mat- 
thew says  Kal  p-rjaTevcras  rifxepas  reaaepaKovra  Kal  recraep- 
aKovra  vvKras,  varepou  iireluaaeu) .  Matthew  agrees  with 
Mark  in  six  consecutive  words  (except  for  the  trans- 
position  of  two   of   them)  where  Luke  has   a  wording 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     131 

of  his  own.  Whereas  Mark  says  that  Jesus  was  tempted 
forty  days,  saying  nothing  about  his  hunger,  Matthew 
says  he  fasted  for  forty  days  and  was  tempted  at  the 
expiration  of  this  time,  and  Luke  that  he  fasted  forty 
days  and  was  tempted  during  that  time.  The  best 
explanation  for  these  divergences  and  similarities  is  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  take  these  verses  from  Mark  but 
correct  him  freely  under  the  influence  of  Q.  Q  also  of 
course  contained  these  verses,  and  they  will  be  assigned 
to  him  when  we  come  to  consider  the  Q  material  in  Mark. 
In  the  rest  of  the  temptation  narrative,  where  Mark  has 
no  parallel,  there  is  great  verbal  similarity.  The  enlarge- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  quotation  may  perhaps  be 
ascribed  to  Matthew.  The  transposition  of  Matthew's 
second  temptation  to  the  third  place  in  Luke  seems  to 
spoil  the  climax  in  the  narrative;  Mr.  Streeter  {Oxford 
Studies,  p.  152)  argues  that  Luke  would  not  have  spoiled 
so  good  an  arrangement  if  he  had  found  it  in  his  source. 
If  this  argument  were  allowed,  the  section  would  have  to 
be  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk.  The  writer  does  not  feel 
that  the  divergences  are  great  enough  to  necessitate  this, 
and  so  assigns  it  to  Q. 

"blessed  are  the  poor" 
(Mt  V,  3;  Lk  vi,  20b) 
Matthew's  beatitude  is  in  the  third  person,  Luke's  in 
the  second.  Matthew  adds  "in  spirit."  If  the  beati- 
tude stood  alone,  the  changes  in  it  are  not  too  great  to  be 
attributed  to  Matthew,  and  the  "in  spirit"  is  what  might 
be  expected.  But  taking  it  in  close  connection  with 
much  material  that  could  not  have  stood  alike  in  Mat- 
thew's source  and  in  Luke's  it  is  better  to  assign  it  to 
QMt  and  QLk. 


132  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

"blessed  are  they  that  mourn" 
(Mt  V,  5;  Lk  vi,  216) 
The  wording  is  not  at  all  similar,  /la/cdpiot  being  the 
only  word  in  common.  Yet  the  two  beatitudes  sound 
like  two  versions  of  the  same  one.  K-Xatco  is  a  Lucan 
word,  used  eleven  times  by  Luke  in  his  Gospel,  against 
twice  by  Matthew  and  three  times  by  Mark.  YeXdco  is 
used  twice  in  Luke's  Gospel,  and  not  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament.  Both  of  these  occurrences  are  in  Luke's 
"Sermon  on  the  Level  Place."  These  facts,  with  the 
context,  indicate  a  source  in  Luke's  hands  partly  like,  and 
partly  unhke,  the  source  in  Matthew's.  The  verse  is 
therefore  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

"blessed  are  they  that  hunger" 
(Mt  V,  6;  Lk  vi,  21a) 
Matthew's  version  is  again  in  the  third  person  and 
Luke's  in  the  second.  Luke  understands  the  hunger 
to  be  literal.  Matthew  "spiritualizes"  by  adding  rriu 
biKaioavv-qv.  Luke  adds  vvv,  to  point  the  contrast  between 
his  beatitude  and  the  corresponding  woe,  which  Matthew 
does  not  have.  In  spite  of  these  differences,  out  of  ten 
words  in  Matthew's  form  and  six  in  Luke's,  five  words 
are  identical  (except  for  a  deviation  in  personal  ending). 
Except  for  the  context  the  verse  might  be  assigned  simply 
to  Q;  but  it  is  better  ascribed  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

"blessed  are  the  persecuted" 

(Mt  V,  11-12;  Lk  vi,  22-23) 

The  verbal  similarity  is  close  only  in  a  few  places; 

notably    in    the   6    fxiados    vjioiv   ttoXvs    iv   rots    ovpavoXs 

(ro)  ovpav!^).     Out  of  thirty-five  words  in  Matthew  and 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke    133 

fifty-one  in  Luke,  only  twelve  are  identical.  Two  con- 
siderations prevent  the  assignment  of  these  verses  to  two 
totally  different  sources.  The  first  is  their  contiguity  to 
so  much  Q  material.  The  second  is  the  presence  in  them 
of  two  translation  variants.^  The  second  of  these  two 
verses,  at  least,  therefore  goes  back  to  two  different 
recensions  or  translations  of  one  original  Aramaic  docu- 
ment—QMt  and  QLk. 

A  SAYING  about  SALT 
(Mt  V,  13;  Lk  xiv,  34) 
This  saying  evidently  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q. 
Luke  follows  Mark  in  koXov  ovv  to  aXa  and  Q  in  the  rest 
of  his  saying.  Matthew's  form  of  the  saying,  which 
makes  it  addressed  to  the  disciples,  "Ye  are  the  salt  of 
the  earth,"  involves  a  much  greater  change  than  Matthew 
ever  permits  himself  when  he  transcribes  the  words  of 
Jesus  which  he  finds  in  Mark.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand, 
could  scarcely  have  found  the  saying  in  his  source  with 
this  application  to  the  disciples,  and  have  changed  it  to 
its  much  less  pointed  and  personal  form  in  his  own  Gos- 
pel. The  only  conclusion  possible  from  a  comparison  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  here  is  that  this  saying  lay  in  different 
forms  in  their  sources.  But  since  it  occurs  in  the  midst 
of  so  much  Q  material,  it  is  better  to  assign  it  to  different 
recensions  of  Q  than  to  some  other  unknown  source. 

A   SAYING    ABOUT   LIGHT 
(Mt  V,  15;  Lk  xi,  33) 
This  is  another  saying  that  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q. 
Mark  has  the  saying  in  Mk  iv,  2L     His  form  of  it  is  the 

1  See  Wellhausen's  Einlcitung,  p.  36,  and  pp.  124-25  of  this  book. 


134  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

apparently  less  natural  one,  "Does  the  lamp  come  in 
order  that  it  may  be  put  under  a  bushel?"  etc.  Weiss 
suggests^  that  it  has  been  given  this  form  to  make  it  refer 
to  the  coming  of  Jesus  as  the  light  of  the  world. 
Neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  has  copied  this  feature  of 
Mark's  saying.  By  his  context  Matthew  makes  the 
saying  refer,  like  the  saying  about  salt,  directly  to  the 
disciples.  Luke  has  the  saying  twice:  in  xi,  33  and  viii. 
16.  In  both  cases  his  context  would  indicate  that  he  took 
the  saying  to  refer  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Matthew 
says  the  light  is  to  give  light  "to  all  that  are  in  the  house." 
Luke  does  not  mention  the  house,  but  implies  it  in  his 
statement  that  "those  who  are  entering  in  see  the  light," 
this  form  being  found  in  both  his  reports  of  the  saying. 
Mark  says  "under  the  bushel  or  under  the  bed";  Mat- 
thew, "  under  the  bushel " ;  Luke  once,  "  in  a  dish  or  under 
the  bed,"  and  a  second  time,  "in  a  cellar  or  under  the 
bushel."  Luke's  fondness  for  the  same  ending  in  his  two 
uses  of  the  saying  can  be  explained  only  by  the  supposition 
that  it  so  stood  in  one  of  his  sources.  The  same  idea  in 
the  conclusion  of  the  saying  as  it  appears  in  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  their  common  avoidance  of  the  opening  formula 
which  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  would  indicate  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  practically  forsake  Mark  in  this  saying,  and 
follow  their  other  source.  Luke,  having  a  doublet  for 
the  saying,  may  be  assumed  to  have  taken  it  once  from 
Mark  and  once  from  his  other  source;  but  he  is  evidently 
much  more  influenced  by  his  other  source  than  he  is  by 
Mark.  The  non-Marcan  source  in  which  the  saying  was 
found  by  Matthew  and  Luke  was  evidently  an  allied,  but 
not  an  identical,  one;  the  saying  is  therefore  assigned  to 
QMt  and  QLk. 

•  Das  dUeste  Evangelium,  p.  175. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     135 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  THE  LAW 
(Mt  V,  18;  Lk  xvi,  17) 
There  are  twenty-seven  words  in  Matthew's  form  of 
this  saying;  fifteen  in  Luke's.  Only  nine  words  show  any 
correspondence.  Matthew's  "until  all  be  fulfilled"  is 
held  by  Schmieden  to  be  a  gloss,  added,  not  by  the  final 
editor  of  Matthew,  who  did  not  care  for  Jewish  legalism, 
but  by  an  earlier  editor.  Harnack  maintains  that  it  goes 
back  to  Jesus,  and  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  law 
shall  ultimately  pass  away.  Li  his  essay  in  the  Oxford 
Studies  Hawkins  maintains  that  the  section  can  be  made 
"very  probable"  for  Q.  Considering  the  wide  diver- 
gences, the  writer  would  add  that  this  probability  can 
be  established  only  upon  the  hypothesis  of  two  recen- 
sions of  Q;  upon  that  hypothesis  it  would  be  granted  by 
everyone. 

"agree  with  thine  adversary" 
(Mt  V,  25-26;  Lk  xii,  .58-.59) 
Luke  prefaces  this  saying  with  one  peculiar  to  his 
Gospel:  "Why  do  ye  not,  of  yourselves,  judge  what  is 
right?"  The  close  connection  of  this  saying  with  the 
passage  here  under  consideration,  and  the  verbal  resem- 
blances and  divergences  of  the  sections  in  Matthew  and 
Luke — ^twenty-five  identical  words  out  of  a  total  of  forty- 
three  in  Matthew  and  forty-nine  in  Luke — warrant  their 
assignment  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

about  non-resistance  and  love  of  enemies 

(Mt  V,  39,  40,  42,  44-48;  Lk  vi,  27-30,  32,  36) 

It  is  possible  to  choose  out  of  these  verses  here  and 

there  a  few  words  which,  if  they  stood  alone,  would  be 

naturally  assigned  simply  to  Q.     By  regarding  only  the 

'  Encyclopaedia  Bihlica,  col.  1864. 


136  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

words  which  very  closely  correspond,  this  is  accomplished, 
but  with  the  result  that  the  other  words,  standing  in  the 
same  context  and  in  closest  connection,  must  be  assigned 
to  totally  different  sources,  or  ascribed  to  the  invention 
or  alteration  of  one,  of  the  evangelists.  The  verbal  simi- 
larity thruout  the  section  is  sometimes  close,  sometimes 
remote.  Transpositions  are  frequent.  Where  Matthew 
has  the  simile  of  the  rain  and  sun,  Luke  has  the  compara- 
tively weak  words  "good  to  the  unthankful  and  evil." 
This  is  a  substitution  that  Luke  certainly  would  never 
have  made  for  the  strong  words  of  Matthew  if  these  had 
stood  in  his  source.  The  author  assigns  the  section  to  the 
two  recensions,  QMt  and  QLk. 


THE    LORD  S    PRAYER 
(Mt  vi,  9-13;  Lk  xi,  2-4) 

This  is  one  of  the  sections  that  point  most  clearly  to 
different  recensions  of  Q  in  the  hands  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  It  is  improbable  that  any  collection  of  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  should  have  lacked  this  prayer.  It  is  equally 
improbable  that  Luke  could  have  had  it  before  him  in 
the  more  elaborated  form  of  Matthew,  and  have  abridged 
it  to  suit  himself.  Matthew's  more  elaborate  form,  on  the 
other  hand,  does  not  sound  like  the  deliberate  alteration 
of  any  one  author,  but  like  the  accumulated  liturgical 
usage  of  the  Christian  community.  Luke's  introduc- 
tion to  the  prayer  is  certainly  not  his  own  invention, 
and  is  so  appropriate  that  it  is  hard  to  believe  that 
Matthew  found  it  in  connection  with  the  prayer  in  his 
source  and  deliberately  omitted  it.  Luke's  form  seems 
decidedly  more  primary.  The  use  in  both  Gospels  of  the 
strange  word  eTtovatov  seems  to  carry  the  two  traditions 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     137 

back  to  one  original;  but  the  variations  are  certainly 
greater  than  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  literary  habits 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  working  upon  the  same  original. 
In  other  words,  that  original  had  passed  thru  a  different 
history  before  it  reached  our  two  evangelists.  The  sec- 
tion is  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk. 


A  SAYING  ABOUT  TREASURES 
(Mt  vi,  19-21;  Lk  xii,  33-34) 
The  verbal  similarity  is  not  close.  Except  for  the 
proximity  of  other  Q  material,  the  section  might  be 
assigned  to  two  entirely  different  sources.  There  is, 
especially,  a  quite  different  turn  given  to  the  saying  in 
Luke,  from  that  which  it  has  in  Matthew,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  the  words  ''Sell  your  goods  and  give  alms." 
In  spite  of  Luke's  interest  in  alms-giving,  as  disclosed  in 
the  Book  of  Acts,  it  is  hard  to  credit  him  with  such  a 
re-wording  of  his  text  without  some  help  from  his  source. 
But  the  last  twelve  words  in  the  section  are  identical  in 
the  two  Gospels,  except  that  Luke  uses  the  plural  form  of 
the  pronoun  where  Matthew  uses  the  singular.  Largely 
on  account  of  these  last  twelve  words  the  section  is 
assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  THE  EYE 
(Mt  vi,  22-23;  Lk  xi,  34-35) 
Of  forty-four  words  in  Matthew  and  forty  in  Luke, 
thirty-two  are  identical.  The  divergences  in  the  use  of 
conjunctions  (orav  for  eav,  e.g.)  and  the  improvement 
by  condensation  of  the  last  sentence  are  such  changes 
as  might  be  easily  ascribed  to  Luke.  The  section  may, 
with  reasonable  assurance,  be  assigned  merely  to  Q. 


138  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

about  double  service 
(Mt  vi,  24;  Lk  xvi,  13) 
There  are  twenty-seven  words  in  this  saying  according 
to  Matthew,  twenty-eight  according  to  Luke.  Luke 
appears  to  have  been  the  innovator;  his  addition  of 
oUerrjs  improves  the  sentence  in  a  way  often  accom- 
pUshed  by  him.  With  the  exception  of  the  presence  of 
this  word  in  Luke  and  its  absence  in  Matthew  the  saying 
is  identical  in  the  two  Gospels.  It  is  therefore  assigned 
simply  to  Q. 

ABOUT  CARE 
(Mt  vi,  25-33;  Lk  xii,  22-31) 
Considering  the  length  of  this  passage,  the  verbal 
similarity  is  remarkably  close.  Out  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  words  in  Luke  and  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  in 
Matthew,  about  one  hundred  and  fifteen  are  identical. 
Beginning  in  the  middle  of  Luke's  vs.  22,  and  at  the  first 
of  Matthew's  vs.  25,  there  are  twenty-six  words  in  Luke 
which  are  identical  with  the  same  number  of  words 
arranged  in  identical  order,  in  Matthew;  except  that  Luke 
has  omitted  (or  Matthew  has  supplied)  three  words, 
without  affecting  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  Begin- 
ning with  Matthew's  vs.  32  and  Luke's  vs.  30,  there  are 
again  twenty-one  identical  words  out  of  twenty-four  in 
Luke  and  thirty-one  in  Matthew.  Matthew  may  here 
easily  be  credited  with  the  addition  of  the  words  which 
constitute  the  difference;  for  his  6  ovpavios  and  his  /cat 
T-qv  hKaioavvqv  are  characteristic  of  him:  the  former  ex- 
pression being  used  by  him  seven  times  and  not  at  all  by 
the  other  evangelists;  the  latter,  seven  times  by  Matthew, 
once  by  Luke,  and  not  at  all  by  Mark.  His  addition 
of  Trpcorov  in  his  vs.  33  has  a  decidedly  secondary  sound. 
The  passage  may  therefore  be  assigned  simply  to  Q. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     139 

ABOUT  JUDGING 
(Mt  vii,  1-2;  Lk  vi,  37-38) 
Between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  this  saying,  both 
of  which  are  ahke  in  the  two  Gospels,  Luke  has  an  ampU- 
fication  of  some  length.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  this 
amplification  is  the  work  of  Luke,  who  is  much  more 
inclined  to  condense  than  to  enlarge.  The  Q  context  in 
both  Gospels,  and  the  almost  exact  agreement  of  the  saying, 
except  for  the  enlargement  in  Luke,  warrant  the  assign- 
ment to  QMt  and  QLk. 

THE  BEAM  AND  THE  MOTE 
(Mt  vii,  3-5;  Lk  vii,  41-42) 
The  verbal  agreement  is  very  close.  Out  of  sixty- 
four  words  in  Matthew  and  sixty-nine  in  Luke  fifty-six 
are  identical,  except  for  deviation  in  mode  or  number. 
The  greater  condensation  seems  characteristic  of  Matthew. 
The  changes  do  not  seem  too  great  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
two  evangelists  working  on  the  same  source,  Q. 

ABOUT  SEEKING  AND  FINDING 
(Mt  vii,  7-11;  Lk  xi,  9-13) 
The  agreement  is  close,  except  where  Luke  in  his  vs. 
12  adds  the  item  of  the  egg  and  the  scorpion  which  has  no 
parallel  in  Matthew.  In  spite  of  the  addition  of  this  verse 
in  Luke,  out  of  eighty  words  in  his  version  and  seventy- 
three  in  Matthew's  sixty-two  are  still  identical.  Luke's 
substitution  of  "holy  spirit"  for  Matthew's  indefinite 
"good  things"  is  characterized  by  Schmiedel  as  a  "delib- 
erate divergence."  The  same  phrase  would  hardly  de- 
scribe the  addition  of  vs.  12.  According  to  the  principle 
here  followed,  it  might  seem  natural  to  assign  this  verse, 
and  so  the  whole  context,  to  Luke's  recension  of  Q.     But 


140  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

in  the  whole  section,  aside  from  this  verse,  there  are  so 
few  deviations,  and  these  so  easily  accounted  for  on  the 
part  either  of  Matthew  or  Luke,  that  the  writer  inclines 
to  assign  the  section  simply  to  Q.  Luke's  vs.  12  would 
then  be  regarded  as  a  gloss,  or  an  addition  of  Luke  from 
some  source  of  his  own,  perhaps  oral.  Between  this  dis- 
posal of  the  matter  and  the  assignment  of  the  entire 
section  to  QMt  and  QLk  there  is  not  much  to  choose. 

THE    golden    rule 

(Mt  vii,  12;  Lk  vi,  31) 
The  last  clause  of  Matthew  may  be  his  own  addition, 
or  perhaps  a  formula  common  among  the  Christians.  It 
may  have  been  a  gloss,  or  may  have  been  found  by 
Matthew  in  his  recension  of  Q.  At  all  events,  it  is  not 
like  Matthew  to  have  added  it  himself;  his  tendency 
toward  condensation  is  too  well  known.  Except  for  this 
addition  the  section  is  sufficiently  alike  in  the  two  Gospels 
to  admit  its  assignment  simply  to  Q. 

THE  NARROW  GATE 
(Mt  vii,  13-14;  Lk  xiii,  23-24) 
With  much  resemblance  in  meaning  there  is  here  very 
little  similarity  in  wording.  Luke's  saying  is  much 
briefer,  and  is  introduced  by  a  question  addressed  to 
Jesus.  It  sounds  almost  like  an  abstract  of  the  saying 
as  it  stands  in  Matthew — if  only  a  precedent  could  be 
shown  for  Luke's  making  such  an  abstract.  One  can 
hardly  speak  with  any  assurance;  but  considering  the 
difference  of  setting,  the  fact  that  in  Luke  the  verses  we 
are  here  considering  are  part  of  a  considerably  longer 
speech,  and  the  slight  verbal  resemblances,  it  may  be  best 
to  assign  Matthew's  version  to  Q,  and  Luke's  to  some 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     141 

source  of  his  own,  whether  oral  or  written.  If  assign- 
ment to  QMt  and  QLk  is  not  impossible,  it  is  certainly 
difficult. 

THE  TREE  AND  ITS  FRUITS 
(Mt  vii,  16-18;  Lk  vi,  43-44) 
For  this  saying  Matthew  has  a  doublet  in  xii,  33-35. 
Mt  vii,  20,  is  also  an  exact  reproduction  of  vii,  16,  with  the 
particle  dpaye  prefixed.  If  Matthew  found  this  saying 
in  two  of  his  sources,  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  the 
second  of  these  was,  for  it  apparently  was  not  Mark.  In 
Matthew's  second  report  of  the  same  saying  he  has  used 
the  words  "generation  of  vipers,"  which  he  has  in  iii,  7, 
ascribed  to  John  the  Baptist.  The  fact  that  both  speeches 
in  which  the  phrase  occurs  have  to  do  with  trees,  and  the 
fact  of  the  repetition,  not  only  of  the  saying  twice  in 
Matthew,  but  of  the  same  sentence  twice  in  one  report, 
may  perhaps  indicate  that  Matthew  found  the  saying 
only  in  his  version  of  Q,  and  is  himself  responsible  for  the 
repetition.  Or  the  saying  may  have  been  recorded  twice 
in  Matthew's  version  of  Q,  with  the  variations  shown  in 
Matthew's  two  citations  of  it.  Upon  either  hypothesis 
the  form  of  Mt  xii,  35,  is  much  nearer  to  Lk  vi,  45,  than 
is  Mt  vii,  19-20,  or  vss.  16-18.  The  writer  assigns  the 
section  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

WARNING  AGAINST  SELF-DECEPTION 
(Mt  vii,  21-23;  Lk  vi,  46;  xiii,  26-27) 
Of  the  first  of  these  three  verses  in  each  Gospel,  Har- 
nack  says  it  is  "perhaps  not  derived  from  Q."  But  the 
verse  stands  in  substantially  the  same  context  in  both 
Gospels— in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Matthew  and 
the  Sermon  on  the  Level  Place  in  Luke.  In  spite  of  the 
difference  introduced  thruout  the  verse  by  Matthew's 


142  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

having  it  in  the  third  person  and  Luke's  giving  it  in  the 
second,  a  reminiscence  of  the  same  source  may  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  Kvpte  is  used  by  Matthew  in  the  vocative, 
where  a  more  strict  construction  would  require  the  accusa- 
tive. The  last  two  verses  of  the  section  Matthew  has 
combined  with  the  first,  whereas  in  Luke  the  context  for 
them  is  quite  different.  Thru  all  three  verses  Luke  seems 
to  have  the  more  primary  form.  Not  only  the  second 
person  of  the  verbs,  and  the  direct  address  of  Jesus  to 
the  crowd,  but  the  words,  ''we  have  eaten  and  drunk  in 
thy  presence  and  thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets"  have 
an  original  sound,  whereas  Matthew's  form,  "Many 
shall  say  to  me  in  that  day.  Lord,  we  have  preached  in 
thy  name  and  in  thy  name  have  cast  out. demons,"  would 
seem  rather  to  come  from  a  time  when  many  men  had 
been  preaching  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  Harnack  says  that 
the  two  sayings  are  "quite  independent,"  but  that  there 
is  "a  common  source  in  the  background."  This  common 
source  in  the  background  might  be  the  undifferentiated 
Q,  and  the  immediate  sources  might  be  the  two  recensions 
of  that  document.  The  general  character  of  the  sayings, 
and  the  context,  would  encourage  such  an  assignment. 
Since  here  as  in  many  other  places  the  version  of  Matthew 
seems  to  indicate  adaptation  to  a  later  time,  but  since 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  cannot  be  shown  to  be  later  than 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,  it  seems  fair  to  attribute  the  diver- 
gence between  the  two  evangelists  here  to  the  different 
history  thru  which  their  two  versions  of  their  common 
source  had  passed  before  coming  into  their  hands.  The 
writer  therefore  assigns  the  section  to  QMt  and  QLk, 
tho  not  without  admission  that  it  might  be  as  well  to 
assign  the  section  in  one  Gospel  to  Q  and  in  the  other  to 
some  entirely  other  source. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     143 

THE  TWO  HOUSES 
(Mt  vii,  24-27;  Lk  vi,  47-49) 
Comparison  of  these  sections  shows  a  much  sUghter 
verbal  agreement  between  them  than  might  have  been 
expected  from  their  general  agreement  in  idea.  Even  in 
idea  the  agreement  is  not  extremely  close.  Matthew's  two 
houses  are  built,  respectively,  upon  the  rock  and  the  sand; 
Luke's  are  built,  respectively,  with  and  without  a  founda- 
tion, irrespective  of  the  soil.  If  Matthew's  version  be  here 
regarded  as  the  more  primary,  as  is  warranted  by  the  fact 
of  its  greater  simplicity  (Matthew  seems  here  also  to  be 
nearer  to  the  Aramaic,  as  indicated  by  his  recurrent  use  of 
Kal  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence),  the  reinterpretation 
and  consequent  re-wording  shown  in  Luke's  version  are 
altogether  too  great  to  be  ascribed  to  the  hand  of  Luke 
himself,  working  upon  a  source  identical  with  Matthew's 
version.  Let  anyone  compare  Luke's  treatment  of  the  say- 
ings of  Jesus  in  Mark  with  the  treatment  of  this  saying, 
which  would  be  required  upon  the  hypothesis  of  an  identi- 
cal source  before  him  and  Matthew,  and  he  will  feel  that 
that  hypothesis  cannot  be  maintained.  And  yet,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  general  similarity  in  the  sections,  there  is  one 
other  thing  that  argues  strongly  for  their  inclusion  in  some 
form  of  Q,  viz.,  their  position,  as  conclusions,  respectively, 
to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain. 
The  writer  therefore  ascribes  them  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

THE    centurion's   SON 

(Mt  viii,  5-10;  Lk  vii,  1-9) 

This  is  the  one  narrative  section  almost  universally 

assigned  to  Q.     But  in  the  first  part  of  the  story  there  is 

wide  divergence.     Matthew  says  the  centurion  himself 

came  to  Jesus.     Luke  not  only  says  he  did  not  come,  but 


144  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

explains  why  he  sent  messengers  instead  of  coming  him- 
self. Burton  alleges  that  Matthew's  omission  of  the 
item  of  the  messengers  is  characteristic  of  him,  with  his 
tendency  to  condensation.  But  that  the  messengers 
were  not  in  the  original  story,  but  were  added  by  Luke 
(or  his  source)  and  not  omitted  by  Matthew,  is  plain  from 
the  fact  that  the  conversation,  even  in  Luke,  is  based 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  centurion  had  made  his 
request  in  person.  In  Luke's  vss.  3-6,  which  contain 
the  account  of  the  sending  of  the  messengers,  there 
are  at  least  five  Lucan  words  {evriiios,  Trapayevofxevoi, 
(TTrouSatcos,  fxaKpav,  aTrexovros) .  These  occur  in  the  por- 
tion of  the  story  unparalleled  in  Matthew.  But  there 
are  also  three  such  Lucan  words  in  the  two  following 
verses,  where  the  story  of  Luke  runs  quite  closely  parallel 
to  that  of  Matthew  (5td,  ri^lcoaa,  raaaoixevos) .  The  chan- 
ging of  a  detail,  even  an  important  detail,  in  the  narrative 
part  of  such  a  section,  especially  when  contrasted  with 
general  faithfulness  to  the  source  in  that  part  containing 
the  words  of  Jesus,  would  be  characteristic  of  Luke.  The 
humility  and  faith  of  the  centurion  are  much  enhanced 
by  the  change.  Yet,  as  Jiilicher  remarks,  Luke  prob- 
ably did  not  invent  this  item  of  his  story;  he  may  have 
imported  it  from  an  oral  tradition,  following  Q  in  the 
remainder  of  the  story.  Even  the  presence  of  the 
"Lucan"  words  would  not  prove  the  Lucan  invention  of 
the  sending  of  the  messengers,  since  these  words  may 
have  come  from  Luke's  special  source  for  this  item  and 
not  from  himself,  tho  this  latter  supposition  would  tell 
against  the  assumption  that  this  special  source  was  an 
oral  one.  Of  these  Lucan  words,  evTLjxos  is  used  a  second 
time  by  Luke  (xiv,  8)  in  a  passage  not  paralleled 
in   Matthew;    it  is  not   used   by  him   in  Acts.     Ilapa- 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     145 

yevbixevoi  is  used  once  by  Mark,  three  times  by  Matthew, 
eight  times  by  Luke  in  his  Gospel,  and  twenty  times  in 
the  Book  of  Acts.  27rou5atcos  is  found  here  only  in  the 
Gospels,  and  not  in  Acts.  MaKpav  is  used  once  by  Mat- 
thew, once  by  Mark,  twice  by  Luke  in  his  Gospel,  and 
three  times  in  Acts.  'ATre'xofres  (in  the  intransitive  sense) 
occurs  twice  in  Matthew,  once  in  Mark,  three  times  in 
Luke's  Gospel,  and  not  in  Acts.  Aio  occurs  once  in 
Mark,  once  in  Matthew,  twice  in  Luke's  Gospel,  and 
eight  times  in  Acts.  'A^toco  is  found  in  Luke  only  among 
the  Gospels,  and  twice  in  Acts.  Tdo-o-co  is  found  in  some 
texts  of  Matthew  in  this  passage,  but  has  probably  been 
assimilated  from  Luke.  It  is  found  in  one  other  passage 
in  Matthew,  in  this  passage  in  Luke,  not  in  Mark,  and 
five  times  in  Acts.  These  facts  cannot  be  said  to  throw 
much  light  on  whether  Luke  is  here  to  be  charged  with  the 
verses  in  which  these  words  occur,  or  whether  they  may 
have  stood  in  his  source.  But  considering  the  extremely 
close  agreement  between  Luke's  vss.  76-9  and  Matthew's 
vss.  86-10  (note  especially  the  dire  \6yco,  unparalleled 
elsewhere),  the  best  conclusion  may  be  that  the  story 
stood  in  Q,  much  as  it  now  stands  in  Matthew,  and  that 
Luke,  perhaps  having  heard  this  other  version  of  the 
story,  has  himself  altered  the  narrative  part  of  it. 

''many  shall  come  feom  east  and  west" 
(Mt  viii,  11-12;  Lk  xiii,  28-29) 
In  Matthew  these  words  are  interpolated  into  the  story 
of  the  centurion's  son;  in  Luke  they  occur  as  part  of  an 
eschatological  speech.  They  seem  better  in  place  with 
Luke  than  with  Matthew.  The  sentence  "There  shall 
be  weeping,"  etc.,  is  transposed  by  one  evangelist  or  the 
other;  as  it  is  used  in  five  other  places  by  Matthew,  and 


146  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

as  he  has  probably  imported  into  the  story  of  the  cen- 
turion the  verses  in  which  it  occurs,  it  is  probable  that 
the  transposition  is  due  to  him.  There  is  sufficient 
divergence  in  wording  between  Matthew  and  Luke  to 
warrant  the  assignment  of  the  verses  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

TWO  MEN  WHO  WOULD  FOLLOW  JESUS 
(Mt  viii,  19-22;  Lk  ix,  57-60) 
To  these  two  sayings  Matthew  and  Luke  supply 
respectively  their  own  introductions.  In  the  first  saying, 
after  the  introduction,  thirty-one  consecutive  words  are 
identical,  except  for  Luke's  substitution  of  elirev  for  the 
original  Xeyet  which  still  appears  in  Matthew.  Li  the 
second  saying,  after  the  introduction,  the  verbal  resem- 
blance is  close,  tho  not  so  close  as  in  the  first  saying.  The 
second  half  of  Luke's  vs.  60  has  a  late  sound,  and  may  be 
attributed  either  to  Luke  or  his  copy  of  Q.  But  the 
resemblance  thruout  is  close  enough  to  warrant  the 
assignment  of  the  section  simply  to  Q. 

"the    HARVEST   IS    GREAT " 
(Mt  ix,  .37-38;  Lk  x,  2) 
This  saying  occurs  in  Matthew's  sending  out  of  the 
twelve  and  in  Luke's  sending  out  of  the  seventy.    Twenty- 
one  consecutive  words  are  identical  except  for  the  trans- 
position of  two  words.     It  is  assigned  to  Q. 

"the    LABORER   IS   WORTHY   OF   HIS   HIRE " 
(Mt  X,  lOc;  Lk  x,  76) 
Mark  and  Q  both  contained  accounts  of  the  sending 
out  of  the  disciples.     This  is  one  of  the  fragments  pre- 
served from  Q  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  not  found  in 
Mark.     It   is   identical   except   for   the   substitution   of 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     147 

ULadov  for  rpoiprjs.  The  change  may  be  attributed  to 
Luke  or  his  recension  of  Q;  in  this  case  the  change  is  so 
slight  as  to  be  easily  chargeable  to  Luke;  it  may  bespeak 
a  time  later  than  that  indicated  by  Matthew's  form — 
a  time  when  the  traveling  preachers  received  not  only 
their  food  but  some  slight  wage.     It  stood  in  Q. 

''greet  the  house" 

(Mt  X,  11-13;  Lk  x,  5-8) 
This  is  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the  advantages 
of  the  hypothesis  of  the  two  recensions  of  Q.  Matthew 
says  "greet  the  house."  Luke  preserves  the  Aramaic 
form  of  that  greeting,  which  was  "Peace  to  this  house." 
But  that  this,  and  not  Matthew's  indefinite  form,  was 
what  stood  in  the  original  Q  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
Matthew  adds,  "If  the  house  is  worthy,  let  your  peace 
come  upon  it;  but  if  it  is  unworthy,  let  your  peace  return 
to  you."^  Luke  has  here  the  phrase  "son  of  peace," 
similar  to  the  phrases  elsewhere  found  in  his  Gospel, 
"sons  of  light,"  "sons  of  consolation,"  "sons  of  this  gen 
eration,"  "sons  of  the  resurrection."  These  phrases 
have  an  Aramaic  sound  which  we  should  expect  to 
encounter  in  almost  any  of  the  Gospels  sooner  than  in 
Luke's.  He  certainly  never  would  have  invented  them. 
The  translation  variants  stamp  the  section  as  belonging 
to  QMt  and  QLk. 

"more    tolerable    for   SODOM " 

(Mt  X,  15;  Lk  x,  12) 

The  variations  are  slight.     'Afx-qp  might  be  taken  to 

indicate  QMt,  but  it  might  also  easily  have  been  omitted 

by  Luke  because  of  its  Aramaic  tone.     The  section  may 

be  safely  ascribed  to  Q. 

■  ;i  ■  ■  ■ 
1  See  also  pp.  124-2.5. 


148  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

''sheep  among  wolves" 
(Mt  X,  16a;  Lk  x,  3) 
Luke   substitutes  apvas  for  Matthew's  Trpo/Sara,  thus 
heightening  the  contrast.     It  may  be  assigned  to  Q. 

HOW  TO  ACT  UNDER  PERSECUTION 
(Mt  X,  19-20;  Lk  xii,  11-12) 
Although  there  is  general  similarity  in  idea,  there  is 
very  little  verbal  resemblance  here,  perhaps  not  enough 
to  warrant  assignment  to  any  common  source,  even  in 
differing  recensions.  Yet  the  proximity  of  other  Q  ma- 
terial in  both  Gospels  and  the  general  character  of  the 
verses  will  perhaps  make  assignment  to  QMt  and  QLk 
more  reasonable  than  any  other. 

THE  disciple  AND  HIS  TEACHER 
(Mt  x,  24-25;  Lk  vi,  40) 
The  agreement  here  is  close  for  a  part  of  the  saying; 
but  Matthew  adds  a  clause  about  the  servant  and  his  lord, 
and  a  reference  to  the  Beelzebul  controversy.  Whether 
attributed  to  Luke  or  his  source,  his  addition  of  Karrjp- 
TKJjievos  may  indicate  the  feeling  that  the  statement  as  to 
the  equality  of  the  disciple  and  his  teacher  required  some 
qualification.  This  would  be  more  strongly  felt,  however, 
if  Luke  had  preserved  the  word  Kvpios,  which  would  refer 
more  unmistakably  to  Jesus.  In  Luke  this  section  occurs 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain;  since  Matthew  has  put  much 
material  in  his  corresponding  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
which  is  not  in  Luke's  Sermon  on  the  Plain,  even  when  he 
has  had  to  bring  this  from  many  other  connections,  it  is 
strange  that  he  has  left  out  of  that  sermon  this  saying, 
which  stands  in  the  corresponding  discourse  in  Luke, 
This  is  one  of  the  phenomena  difficult  of  explanation  upon 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     149 

the  simple  hypothesis  of  Q;  since  upon  that  hypothesis 
Matthew  should  have  found  this  saying  in  the  same  con- 
nection as  that  in  which  Luke  found  it,  and  why,  so  find- 
ing it,  he  not  only  took  pains  to  add  so  much  to  it,  but  to 
transpose  it  upon  the  opposite  principle  to  that  which  he 
has  followed  in  the  transposition  of  most  other  Q  material, 
is  not  easy  to  explain.  On  these  grounds  the  saying  is 
ascribed  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

EXHORTATION  TO  FEARLESS  CONFESSION 
(Mt  X,  26-33;  Lk  xii,  2-9) 
The  agreements  and  variations  in  this  section  are  pre- 
cisely such  as  to  indicate  an  ultimate  common  source,  but 
immediate  different  sources.  Li  Matthew's  vs.  27  and 
Luke's  vs.  3,  with  many  of  the  same  words  retained,  the 
meaning  is  directly  reversed.  On  the  other  hand,  ^ojSeXa-de 
{(j)oj3r]drJT€)  with  aTro  is  found  here  only  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  not  at  all  in  the  Septuagint.  Unless  this  be 
ascribed  to  assimilation,  it  is  a  coincidence  too  marked 
to  be  explained  except  by  the  supposition  of  an  ultimate 
common  source.  The  same  thing  is  to  be  said  of  the 
phrase  djjLoKoyrja-eL  Iv  in  Matthew's  vs.  32  and  Luke's  vs.  8. 
Yet  in  the  midst  of  the  section  there  is  a  passage  of  twenty 
or  twenty-five  words  in  which  there  is  practically  no  verbal 
coincidence,  tho  the  idea  is  the  same.  Luke  substitutes 
"have  not  anything  else  that  they  can  do,"  for  Matthew's 
phrase  ''can  not  kill  the  soul";  it  has  been  suggested  that 
this  latter  was  not  congenial  to  Luke's  Greek  method  of 
thot.  Where  Matthew  mentions  the  price  of  sparrows 
as  "two  for  a  farthing,"  Luke  specifies  it  as  "five  for  two 
farthings."  The  section  contains  no  narrative  matter. 
A  comparison  of  the  deviations  between  Matthew  and 
Luke  here,  with   their  agreements  with   each  other  in 


150  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

sections  where  they  are  taking  over  the  discourse  material 
of  Jesus  from  Mark,  will  show  that  these  deviations  are 
decidedly  too  great  to  be  ascribed  to  the  agency  of  either 
Matthew  or  Luke.  The  passage  is  therefore  assigned  to 
QMt  and  QLk. 

STRIFE  AMONG  RELATIVES 
(Mt  X,  34-36;  Lk  xii,  51-53) 
Luke's  version  seems  more  elaborated  and  less  original 
than  Matthew's.  Luke  certainly  would  not  have  sub- 
stituted the  comparatively  colorless  word  hajxepiaixov  for 
/ittxatpaz/  if  this  latter  had  stood  in  his  source.  With- 
out the  hypothesis  of  the  two  recensions  this  section  would 
have  to  be  assigned  to  totally  different,  perhaps  oral, 
sources.  5ta^teptfco  is  used  once  by  Mark,  and  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  both  copied  it  from  him  in  that  connection. 
Neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  uses  the  word  again;  Luke 
uses  it  in  five  other  places  in  his  Gospel,  including  the 
section  now  under  consideration.  As  he  uses  it  but  twice 
in  Acts,  it  seems  more  likely  to  have  been  found  in  his 
source  than  to  have  been  here  inserted  by  him.  This 
would  tell  strongly  against  the  supposition  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  are  here  working  over  an  identical  source;  in 
other  words,  it  would  remove  this  section  from  simple 
undifferentiated  Q.  Only  the  general  character  of  the 
material,  its  close  resemblance  in  meaning  in  the  two 
Gospels,  and  its  proximity  in  each  Gospel  to  other  Q 
material,  can  justify  its  assignment  to  QMt  and  QLk — 
and  then,  even,  with  uncertainty. 

CONDITIONS    OF   DISCIPLESHIP 
(Mt  X,  37-39;  Lk  xiv,  26-27;  xvii,  33) 
Luke's  statement  is  much  stronger,  and  so  presumabl}^ 
older,  than  Matthew's.     Wellhausen  says  Matthew  has 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     151 

been  ''refined  out  of  Luke."  In  Matthew,  the  two  say- 
ings about  taking  up  the  cross,  and  about  finding  and 
losing  one's  fife,  follow  each  other;  in  Luke,  at  this  place, 
they  are  separated  by  more  than  three  chapters.  But 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  give  both  of  these  sayings  a 
second  time,  and  the  second  time  the  two  sayings  are 
continuous  in  both,  as  they  also  are  in  Mark,  from  whom 
they  are  taken.  The  facts  seem  therefore  to  have  been 
that  Matthew  and  Luke  each  took  both  of  these  sayings 
from  two  sources;  that  in  Mark  the  two  sayings  occurred 
together;  that  in  Luke's  recension  of  Q  (at  least),  they 
were  separated;  that  they  were  probably  separated  in 
Matthew's  Q  also,  but  he  has  combined  them  according 
to  his  habit,  helped  here  by  the  recollection  of  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  two  sayings  in  Mark.  The  substitution 
of  "who  seeks  to  find  his  soul"  for  the  simpler  form  ''who 
finds  his  soul"  might  easily  be  ascribed  to  Luke;  it  is  in 
the  interest  of  logicality.  But  it  is  quite  unlike  Luke  to 
have  added  from  oral  tradition,  or  to  have  inserted  from 
any  other  written  source,  so  much  matter  of  his  own  as 
is  found  in  his  vs.  26.  The  section  is  therefore  assigned 
to  QMt  and  QLk. 

"he  that  receiveth  you" 
(Mt  X,  40;  Lk  x,  16) 
Luke  has  a  doublet  for  this  saying  in  Lk  ix,  48,  where 
the  form  is  slightly  more  like  Matthew's  than  at  this 
point;  but  ix,  48,  appears  to  be  taken  from  Mark,  with 
reminiscence  of  Q.  The  saying  is  also  given  twice  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  and  with  the  saying  just  considered  con- 
stitutes the  total  of  sayings  occurring  in  all  four  Gospels. 
Luke  has  taken  the  saying  once  from  Mark  and  once 
from  Q.     Considering  Matthew's  partiality  to  doublets, 


152  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  fact  that  he  has  the  saying  only  once  might  be  taken  to 
indicate  its  absence  from  his  recension  of  Q.  The  saying 
may  therefore  be  assigned  to  QLk. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  BAPTIST  AND  JESUS'  ANSWER 
(Mt  xi,  2-19;  Lk  vii,  18-35) 

With  the  exception  of  the  introduction  in  Luke,  this 
long  section  may  safely  be  assigned  to  Q.  The  preceding 
narrative  in  Matthew  has  supplied  a  warrant  for  the 
statement  of  Jesus  about  his  healings;  Luke,  not  having 
led  up  to  the  conversation  by  a  similar  narrative,  inserts 
the  statement  here  that  "in  that  hour  he  healed  many 
sick,"  etc.  After  the  introductions,  the  verbal  resem- 
blance is  extremely  close,  considering  the  length  of  the 
section.  Of  one  hundred  and  ninety-nine  words  in 
Matthew  and  two  hundred  and  three  in  Luke,  about  one 
hundred  and  sixty-eight  are  identical. 

THE  WOE  UPON  THE  GALILEAN  CITIES 
(Mt  xi,  20-24;  Lk  x,  13-15) 
This  section  is  practically  identical  in  both  Gospels, 
except  for  Matthew's  vs.  24  and  the  last  half  of  vs.  23, 
which  have  no  parallel  in  Luke.  They  are  an  elaboration 
upon  the  words  that  precede  them,  and  may  be  ascribed 
to  Matthew  or  an  editor.  The  section  may  be  assigned 
to  Q. 

"l  THANK  THEE,  O  FATHER" 
(Mt  xi,  2.5-27;  Lk  x,  21-22) 
The  introduction,  again,  has  been  supplied  by  each 
evangelist,  tho  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  introduction 
given  in  Matthew  may  have  been  taken  from  Q.  After 
the  introductions,  twenty-nine  consecutive  words  are 
identical.  Again,  after  Luke's  insertion  of  a  few  transi- 
tional words,  the  saying,  "All  things  are  given  to  me  of  my 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     153 

Father,"  runs  almost,  tho  not  quite,  word  for  word  in  the 
two  Gospels.  The  connecting  words  in  Luke  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  these  two  sayings  were  not  con- 
secutive in  Q.  It  is  not  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the 
recensions  here. 

JESUS'  DEFENSE  AGAINST  THE  PHARISEES 
(Mt  xii,  27-28;  Lk  xi,  19-20) 
These  verses  occur  in  the  midst  of  a  narrative  which 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  taken  from  Mark.  Mark  has 
no  parallel  for  these  verses,  and  the  resemblance  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  very  close;  the  saying  is  in  fact 
identical  except  for  Luke's  use  of  5aKTv\cc  for  Matthew's 
TTPevfxaTL.  The  fact  that  in  the  succeeding  verses 
Matthew  follows  Mark  practically  word  for  word,  while 
Luke  has  a  version  entirely  his  own,  may  perhaps  indicate 
that  the  narrative  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q,  Matthew 
having  followed  Mark  thruout,  except  for  the  verses  here 
considered,  and  Luke  having  followed  chiefly  Q,  with  an 
occasional  deference  to  Mark.  It  may  safely  be  assigned 
toQ. 

"he    THAT   IS    NOT   WITH   ME " 

(Mt  xii,  30;  Lk  xi,  23) 

A  statement  the  exact  reverse  of  this  occurs  in  Mk  ix, 

40,  in  a  different  context.     The  words  here  are  identical 

in  the  two  Gospels,  the  order  also  being  the  same.     It 

stood  in  Q. 

JONAH  AND  THE  NINEVITES 
(Mt  xii,  38-42;  Lk  xi,  29-32) 
Each  evangelist  has  supplied  his  own  introduction. 
Matthew's  vs.  40  is  probably  an  interpolation,  or  at  least 
a  late  addition.  Beginning  with  Matthew's  vs.  41  and 
Luke's  vs.  32  (the  order  of  Luke's  verses  has  been  reversed, 
perhaps  by  error  of  a  scribe,  since  no  motive  appears  for 


154  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  change),  there  are  fifty-three  words  in  Matthew,  fifty- 
five  in  Luke,  and  fifty-three  of  them  are  identical.  The 
verses  are  therefore  universally  assigned  to  Q. 

A  SPEECH  ABOUT  BACKSLIDING 
(Mt  xii,  43-45;  Lk  xi,  24-26) 
The  correspondence  here  also  is  very  close;  out  of 
sixty-two  words  in  Matthew  and  fifty-five  in  Luke,  fifty- 
four  are  identical.  Matthew's  surplus  of  eight  words  is 
accounted  for  by  the  addition  of  a  clause  not  found  in 
Luke,  and  probably  a  later  addition  in  Matthew;  it  does 
not  disturb  the  practical  identity  thruout  the  rest  of  the 
saying.     It  evidently  stood  in  Q. 

"blessed  ARE  THE  EYES  THAT  SEE  " 
(Mt  xiii,  16-17;  Lk  x,  23-24) 
Luke  has  supplied  his  own  introduction.  Matthew 
has,  as  parallel  to  ''the  eyes  that  see,"  "the  ears  that 
hear."  This  may  be  a  later  addition  in  Matthew;  or 
Luke,  not  caring  so  much  for  the  Aramaic  parallelism  as 
Matthew  does,  may  have  omitted  it.  Luke  has  "kings" 
where  Matthew  has  "righteous  men";  dUaLos  is  a  favor- 
ite word  with  Matthew;  on  the  other  hand,  Luke's  use 
of  "kings"  may  indicate  an  apologetic  intention  upon 
Luke's  part.  The  saying  may  be  assigned  to  Q,  and  the 
variations  charged  jointly  to  Matthew  and  Luke. 

THE  parable  of  THE  YEAST 
(Mt  xiii,  33;  Lk  xiii,  20-21) 
The  introductions  in  the  two  Gospels  are  slightly 
different.  After  these,  fourteen  consecutive  words  are 
alike,  the  only  deviation  being  Matthew's  use  (as  always) 
of  Toov  ovpavoov  where  Luke  has  tov  deov.  The  parable 
stood  in  Q. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     155 

THE    blind    leading    THE    BLIND 
(Mt  XV,  14;  Lk  vi,  39) 

This  is  another  instance  of  a  saying  which  occurs  in 
Luke's  Sermon  on  the  Plain  but  outside  of  Matthew's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Matthew  has  apparently  inserted 
it  in  the  midst  of  a  discourse  against  the  Pharisees,  the 
rest  of  which  he  has  taken  from  Mark.  The  sayings  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  not  identical.  If  the  saying  stood 
in  Q,  and  Matthew  removed  it  from  its  Lucan  connection 
to  its  present  position  in  his  Gospel,  this  was  certainly 
a  very  unusual  procedure  with  him.  The  saying  is  given 
as  a  "  parable  "  in  Luke,  and  has  the  brevity  of  the  parables 
that  were  given  in  Q,  tho  not  their  usual  reference  to  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  is  hard  to  think  of  Matthew,  with 
his  fondness  for  these  brief  parables,  deliberately  omitting 
to  call  the  saying  by  this  name  when  it  was  so  called  in 
his  source.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  seems  best  to 
assign  the  saying  to  Q,  and  to  charge  Matthew  with  its 
displacement. 

A   SAYING   ABOUT   FAITH 
(Mt  xvii,  20;  Lk  xvii,  6) 

The  parallel  here  is  not  close.  But  Matthew  has  a 
doublet  in  xxi,  21,  and  Mark  a  similar  saying  in  xi,  22. 
The  saying  seems  therefore  to  have  been  in  both  Mark 
and  Q,  and  was  taken  by  Matthew  from  both  sources  and 
by  Luke  from  one.  The  connection  of  the  saying  in  Luke 
indicates  that  he  took  it  from  Q;  yet  his  saying  is  not  the 
same  as  Matthew's,  in  that  he  substitutes  a  sycamore 
tree  for  Matthew's  mountain,  thus  greatly  weakening  the 
comparison.  The  two  sayings  certainly  cannot  have 
been  derived  by  Matthew  and  Luke  from  an  identical 


156  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

source.     It  is  only  on  the  ground  of  their  general  logian 
character  that  they  can  be  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  OFFENSES 
(Mt  xviii,  7;  Lk  xvii,  1) 
The  comparison  here  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that 
this  saying  apparently  stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q.  It  is 
closely,  but  in  reverse  order  by  the  two  later  evangelists, 
connected  with  a  saying  taken  from  Mark.  It  may  be 
assigned  to  Q. 

THE  STRAY  SHEEP 
(Mt  xviii,  12-14;  Lk  xv,  4-7) 
There  seems  here  to  be  little  or  no  literary  relationship. 
The  two  passages  appear  to  be  rather  different  versions 
of  the  same  parable,  which  have  come  down  thru  different 
channels.  If  it  be  assumed  that  Matthew's  version  is 
from  Q,  there  is  not  enough  literary  agreement  between 
it  and  Luke's  to  prove  the  latter  to  be  from  any  recension 
of  that  document.  Considering  the  larger  content  of 
Matthew's  recension,  and  his  apparently  greater  unwill- 
ingness to  make  omissions  from  it,  it  might  be  safe  to 
assign  this  to  QMt,  but  to  leave  Luke's  source  for  his  ver- 
sion unspecified.  At  the  same  time  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  the  parables  stand  apparently  half-way  between  the 
narratives  and  the  sayings,  as  regards  the  willingness  of 
the  evangelists  to  deviate  from  the  wording  found  before 
them.  If  enough  may  be  allowed  for  this  difference 
between  parables  and  sayings,  the  divergence  between  the 
two  Gospels  in  this  section  might  not  be  considered  too 
great  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  known  habits  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  working  on  different  recensions  of  an  original 
Q;  and  so  the  passage  might  be  assigned  to  QMt  and 
QLk — but  certainly  not  with  any  confidence. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     157 

ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 
(Mt  xviii,  21-22;  Lk  xvii,  4) 
These  might  be  considered  merely  as  variants  of  the 
same  original  saying.  If  the  reference  to  Peter  be  taken, 
like  some  of  the  other  references  to  him  in  Matthew,  to  be 
later  than  the  saying  itself,  the  insertion  of  this  refer- 
ence in  Matthew,  whether  by  Matthew  or  his  source,  may 
have  changed  the  form  of  the  saying  from  its  original  as 
preserved  in  Luke.  But  the  very  slight  verbal  agreement 
makes  any  specification  of  a  common  literary  source 
hazardous. 

REWARDS  FOR  DISCIPLESHIP 
(Mt  xix,  28;  Lk  xxii,  28-30) 
The  first  part  of  this  section  varies  greatly  between 
Matthew  and  Luke;  with  strong  similarity  in  idea,  there 
is  practically  no  verbal  agreement.  The  last  ten  words 
are  almost  identical.  Matthew  inserts  the  section  into 
a  speech  the  rest  of  which  is  taken  from  Mark.  Luke 
takes  the  same  speech  from  Mark,  without  making  this 
insertion.  The  verses  occur  with  him  in  quite  another 
context.  His  vs.  30a  is  more  primary  than  anything  in 
Matthew's  version.  The  first  part  of  the  section  contains 
too  little  agreement  to  have  been  worked  out  of  an  identi- 
cal source;  the  last  part  agrees  so  closely  as  to  indicate 
an  ultimate  common  source.  We  therefore  assign  the 
section  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

AGAINST   THE    PHARISEES 

(Mt  xxiii,  4;  Lk  xi,  46) 

The  agreement  is  slight,   but  somewhat  significant. 

cjyopTiov  is  used  only  thrice  in  the  New  Testament  outside 

of  this  passage.     This  is  the  chief  linguistic  warrant  for 

assigning  the  passage  to  QMt  and  QLk. 


158  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

"whoso  humbles  himself" 
(Mt  xxiii,  12;  Lk  xiv,  11) 
This  proverbial  saying  is  used  by  Luke  in  this  instance 
as  the  conclusion  of  a  speech  about  taking  the  chief  seats 
at  a  feast.  He  also  uses  it  in  xviii,  14,  as  the  conclusion 
to  his  parable  of  the  Publican  and  the  Pharisee  in  the 
temple.  Matthew  also  uses  it  in  two  very  different 
contexts;  here  as  part  of  a  speech  against  the  Pharisees, 
and  in  xviii,  4,  with  reference  to  a  child  as  type  of  true 
greatness.  Considering  these  various  usages,  the  brevity 
of  the  saying,  and  its  apparently  proverbial  character,  it 
can  scarcely  be  assigned  to  any  form  of  Q,  tho  it  certainly 
cannot  be  proved  not  to  have  been  in  that  document. 

AGAINST  THE  PHARISEES 
(Mt  xxiii,  1.3;  Lk  xi,  52) 
It  is  possible  to  regard  these  rather  as  variants  of  the 
same  saying  than  as  workings  over  of  the  same  source. 
Even  in  the  divergences,  however,  some  striking  resem- 
blances are  to  be  noted.  Matthew  says  /cXetere  ttiv 
^acFLkdav;  Luke  says  r)pare  Tr]v  Kktlba.  These  words 
seem  to  betray  a  common  literary  source  in  the  back- 
ground. The  idea  conveyed  by  the  two  phrases  is  the 
same.  Matthew  says,  "Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  before  men";  Luke  says,  "Ye  take  away  the  key 
of  knowledge"  (of  salvation,  probably,  as  in  Lk  i,  77). 
The  last  part  of  the  saying  is  still  more  unmistakably 
based  upon  an  ultimate  common  source.  Yet,  as  I  have 
so  often  argued  with  reference  to  other  and  similar  sec- 
tions, to  ascribe  to  either  Matthew  or  Luke,  working 
upon  an  identical  source,  the  amount  of  re-working  here 
involved,  credits  them  with  a  degree  of  freedom  in  the 
treatment  of  Jesus'  sayings  which  finds  no  parallel  in 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     159 

their  treatment  of  such  sajdngs  as  they  take  them  from 
the  Gospel  of  Mark.  We  therefore  assign  the  section  to 
QMt  and  QLk.  But  such  assignment  cannot  be  insisted 
upon. 

against  the   PHARISEES 
(Mt  xxiii,  23-26;  Lk  xi,  39-42) 

There  is  thruout  this  section  a  varying  degree  of 
verbal  agreement.  The  sections  are  very  differently 
placed,  Matthew  putting  them  among  the  Jerusalem 
sayings,  Luke  early  in  the  ministry.  What  is  conclusive 
evidence  for  some  form  of  Q,  indeed  for  the  two  recen- 
sions, is  the  translation  variant  in  vss.  26  and  41. ^  The 
section  is  thus  not  merely  assigned,  but  we  may  say  is 
demonstrated  to  belong,  to  QMt  and  QLk. 

A  WOE  UPON  the  scribes 
(Mt  xxiii,  29-31;  Lk  xi,  47-48) 
There  is  so  little  verbal  agreement  here  as  to  raise  the 
question  whether  we  have  not  merely  two  different  tradi- 
tions of  the  same  saying.  What  inclines  us  to  cling  to 
the  assignment  to  QMt  and  QLk  is  the  fact  that  these 
words  are  preceded  and  followed  in  both  Gospels  by 
passages  which  have  much  more  close  verbal  agreement 
with  each  other  than  is  found  in  this  section.  The  verses 
are  assigned  to  Q  by  all  five  of  the  investigators  quoted 
at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter.  But  anyone  who  will 
compare  the  slight  verbal  agreement  thruout  these  verses 
with  the  verbal  identity  shown  in  other  passages  assigned 
to  Q  will  wonder  why  these  scholars  have  not  availed 
themselves  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  two  recensions.  For 
upon  the  basis  of  their  treatment  of  other  passages,  both 

'  See  the  treatment  of  this  passage  on  p.  124. 


160  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

from  Q  and  from  Mark,  the  divergences  in  this  passage 
are  altogether  too  great  to  be  assigned  directly  to  Matthew 
or  Luke. 

"l  SEND  UNTO  YOU  PROPHETS " 
(Mt  xxiii,  34-36;  Lk  xi,  49-51) 
The  assignment  of  this  section  to  simple  Q,  and  the 
ascription  of  all  divergences  to  one  or  the  other  of  the 
evangelists,  would  be  easier  if  it  could  be  shown  that 
either  evangelist  shows  a  uniform  tendency  in  the  diver- 
gences. But  such  is  not  the  case.  Luke  seems  more 
primary,  and  nearer  to  the  source,  when  he  quotes  the 
words  of  the  passage  from  "The  Wisdom  of  God";  for 
no  evangelist,  finding  the  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  his 
source,  would  take  them  away  from  him  and  ascribe  them 
to  anyone  else.  But  Matthew,  or  his  source,  may  merely 
have  interpreted  the  words  ''The  Wisdom  of  God"  to 
refer  to  Jesus.  Luke  is  later  than  Matthew,  where  he 
substitutes  "apostles"  for  Matthew's  "scribes";  but 
Matthew  is  secondary  to  Luke  where  he  has  aTavpoxrere, 
in  apparent  reminiscence  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  He  is 
also  secondary  in  his  vs.  34,  which  seems  to  reflect  the 
persecutions  of  the  Christians.  But  Luke  again  is  second- 
ary in  omitting  Matthew's  mistaken  identification  of 
Zachariah  as  the  son  of  Barachiah.  The  use  of  verbs  in 
the  second  person  in  Luke  and  in  the  third  person  in 
Matthew  is  accounted  for  by  the  quotation  in  the  one 
Gospel  and  the  direct  address  in  the  other,  eirl  ttjs  yrjs 
and  diro  KaTa^oKrjs  Koa/jiov  may  be  translation  variants. 
Careful  comparison  of  the  verbal  similarities  indicates 
unmistakably  a  common  literary  source  lying  in  the 
background;  but  a  source  much  worked  over  before 
reaching  Matthew  and  Luke. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     161 

THE  LAMENT  OVER  JERUSALEM 
(Mt  xxiii,  37-39;  Lk  xiii,  34-35) 
Tho  placed  so  differently  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  this 
section  has  the  greatest  verbal  agreement.  Out  of  fifty- 
six  words  in  Matthew  and  fifty-three  in  Luke,  fifty  are 
identical.  Luke  omits  the  repetition  of  one  verb,  omits 
''desolate"  and  substitutes  two  particles  of  his  own  for 
four  of  Matthew's.  Harnack's  explanation  of  Luke's 
omission  of  "desolate"^  on  the  ground  that  the  meaning 
is  the  same  without  it  does  not  seem  conclusive.  It  is 
better  to  assume  that  it  was  added  by  Matthew  in  defer- 
ence to  Jer  xxii,  5.  The  wording  of  the  section  shows  so 
little  deviation  between  the  two  Gospels  that  it  may  be 
assigned  simply  to  Q. 

THE    DAY   OF   THE   SON    OF   MAN 
(Mt  xxiv,  26-27;  Lk  xvii,  23-24) 
There  is  slight  verbal  resemblance  here,  but  enough  to 
indicate  unmistakably  a  literary  relationship.     QMt  and 
QLk  are  much  more  likely  than  simple  Q. 

THE  BODY  AND  THE  EAGLES 
(Mt  xxiv,  28;  Lk  xvii,  37) 
In  Matthew,  but  not  in  Luke,  these  words  form  the 
conclusion  to  the  words  just  considered.  The  substitu- 
tion of  (7co/^a  for  TTco/xa  sounds  like  an  oral  variation;  but 
it  may  be  Luke's  way  of  avoiding  a  word  which  he 
nowhere  uses.  The  wording  is  otherwise  so  close  as  to 
warrant  assignment  to  simple  Q. 

THE    DAYS    OF    NOAH 
(Mt  xxiv,  37-39;  Lk  xvii,  26-27) 
Luke,  or  his  recension  of  Q,  says  here,  as  elsewhere, 
"the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,"  where  Matthew  says  "the 

1  See  his  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  30-31. 


162  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

parousia  of  the  Son  of  man."  The  reason  for  this  devia- 
tion is  not  obvious,  unless  the  variation  was  in  the  source. 
We  therefore  assign  the  passage  to  the  two  recensions. 

THE  ONE  TAKEN,  THE  OTHER  LEFT 
(Mt  xxiv,  40-41;  Lk  xvii,  34-35) 
In  Matthew,  but  not  in  Luke,  these  words  are  immedi- 
ately connected  with  those  just  discussed.  Luke,  or  his 
source,  wishes  to  indicate  that  the  parousia  may  be  in  the 
night,  and  so  adds  the  words  vvktl  and  Kklurjs.  But  the 
arrangement  of  the  verses  is  in  the  same  order  in  both 
Gospels,  and  there  is  strong  similarity,  especially  in  vss. 
41  and  35.  We  consider  assignment  to  QMt  and  QLk 
to  account  most  nearly  for  all  the  facts. 

THE    WATCHING   SERVANT 
(Mt  xxiv,  43-44;  Lk  xii,  39-40) 
The  verbal  coincidence  here  is  great.     The  last  four- 
teen words  are  exactly  alike  in  both  Gospels,  even  to  their 
order.     It  should  be  assigned  to  simple  Q. 

THE  TRUE  AND  FALSE  SERVANT 
(Mt  xxiv,  45-51;  Lk  xii,  42-46) 
The  connection  of  these  sections  with  the  one  just  con- 
sidered is  the  same  in  both  Gospels.  The  verbal  agree- 
ment is  equally  striking.  Out  of  one  hundred  and  ten 
words  in  Matthew  and  one  hundred  and  two  in  Luke, 
eighty-two  are  identical;  twenty-six  of  these  occur  con- 
secutively and  with  no  deviation  in  order.  The  section 
may  be  assigned  to  Q. 

RESULTS    OF   THE    PRECEDING    INVESTIGATION 

This  investigation  yields  about  one  hundred  and  ninety 
Q  verses  (in  some  instances  only  parts  of  verses)  in 
Matthew,  paralleled  by  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  Q 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke    163 

verses  in  Luke.  The  difference  in  the  number  of  verses 
has  no  significance,  being  due  chiefly  to  the  verses  not 
being  similarly  divided  in  the  two  Gospels.  Of  this 
total,  ninety-eight  in  Matthew  and  ninety-four  in  Luke 
are  ascribed  simply  to  Q.  This  does  not  mean,  as  has 
been  said  before,  that  Matthew  and  Luke  both  had  a 
document  Q,  and  in  addition  Matthew  had  a  document 
QMt  and  Luke  another  document  QLk;  but  merely  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  had  two  recensions  of  Q,  each  of  which 
had  passed  thru  a  history  of  its  own,  and  had  become  in 
many  ways  differentiated  from  the  other;  and  that  in 
certain  parts  of  each  recension  such  differentiation  had 
not  occurred,  so  that  these  sections  of  the  two  recensions 
may  still  be  referred  to  under  the  symbol  Q.  Of  the 
two  recensions,  therefore,  so  far  as  these  reappear  in 
parallels  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  about  half  in  each  differs 
so  widely  from  the  same  half  in  the  other  that  it  is  alto- 
gether unreasonable  to  attribute  the  difference  to  either 
or  both  of  the  evangelists. 

If  it  be  asked,  why  we  should  attempt  to  attribute  to 
any  form  of  Q  this  material  which  is  too  seriously  dis- 
similar to  have  been  drawn  directly  by  the  evangelists 
from  an  identical  source — why  we  do  not  simply  assign  this 
to  totally  separate  sources,  and  restrict  Q  to  the  sections 
which  are  practically  identical  in  the  two  Gospels — the 
answer  is:  this  material  in  the  two  gospels  seems  to 
betray  not  merely  an  oral  but  a  literary  affinity;  it  is  of 
the  same  general  character  as  that  which  is  assigned 
directly  to  Q;  and  almost  without  exception,  in  one  gospel 
or  the  other  or  in  both,  it  is  inextricably  mingled  with 
this. 

Thruout  this  discussion  the  distinction  between  narra- 
tive  material   and   sayings-material,  and  the  difference 


164  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

in  treatment  accorded  to  these  two  kinds  of  material  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind. 
The  amount  of  literary  divergence  that  may  be  fairly 
assigned  to  the  initiative  of  Matthew  or  Luke  in  their  use 
of  a  document  of  sayings  is  hard  to  define.  But  Sir  John 
Hawkins  is  surely  wrong  when  he  says^  that  Matthew  and 
Luke  need  not  be  expected  to  adhere  more  closely  to  Q 
than  they  do  to  Mark.  For  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which 
they  find  in  Mark,  Matthew  and  Luke  do  generally  adhere 
very  closely.  It  is  in  the  narrative  portions  of  Mark  that 
they  permit  themselves  liberties.  But  there  is  little  or  no 
narrative  in  Q;  the  only  certain  instance  of  narrative 
being  that  of  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  son;  and  in 
this  instance  it  is  significant  that  the  deviations  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  in  the  narrative  and  not  in  the 
logian  portions.  Speaking  of  each  document  as  a  whole, 
it  should  be  clear  that  Q  would  be  followed  with  very 
much  greater  fidelity  than  Mark  by  both  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

Now  the  translation  variants  are  proof  positive  of  two 
Greek  translations  of  the  original  Aramaic  Q,  these  two 
translations  having  been  made  from  two  texts  of  the 
original  which  betray  some  divergences  or  corruptions. 
Tho  these  two  Greek  translations  were  thus  made  from 
two  Aramaic  copies,  nevertheless  in  about  half  of  the 
matter  which  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  in  taking  from 
these  translations  no  substantial  differences  had  crept  in; 
but  half,  also,  shows  deviations  too  great  to  be  ascribed 
to  Matthew  and  Luke.  If  all  the  matter  common  to 
Matthew  and  Luke  were  identical,  or  nearly  so,  no  need 
would  arise  for  QMt  and  QLk.  If  it  were  all  as  dissimilar 
as  half  of  it  is,  no  place  would  be  left  for  Q  of  any  sort. 

1  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  109. 


Q,  QMt,  and  QLk  in  Matthew  and  Luke     165 

The  distinction  between  Matthew's  and  Luke's  recensions 
of  Q  best  accounts  aUke  for  the  agreements  and  the 
divergences. 

In  the  preceding  examination  the  number  of  Q  (includ- 
ing QMt  and  QLk)  verses  ascribed  to  Matthew  and  Luke 
respectively  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  number 
ascribed  to  them  by  Harnack  and  Hawkins  in  Tables  II 
and  III  (pp.  110-11  and  116-17).  This  agreement  merely 
indicates  that  Harnack  and  Hawkins  have  confined  their 
Q  material  pretty  closely  to  the  sections  which  show  the 
greatest  verbal  agreement.  The  difference  between  the 
position  reached  in  these  pages  and  that  reached  by  Har- 
nack and  Hawkins  is  that  the  present  writer  feels  that 
those  two  scholars  cannot  be  justified  in  ascribing  such 
wide  divergences  to  the  literary  activity  of  the  evangelists 
themselves,  and  that  they  have  hampered  themselves  by 
not  taking  advantage  of  the  fact  of  the  recensions,  as 
guaranteed  to  us  by  the  translation  variants. 


CHAPTER  III 
Q  IN  THE  SINGLE  TRADITION  OF  MATTHEW  (QMt) 

Thus  far,  examination  has  been  made  of  only  such 
material  as  is  somewhat  closely  duplicated  in  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Examination  will  now  be  made  of  the  sayings 
that  are  found  in  Matthew,  unduplicated  in  Luke,  to 
see  whether  any  of  these  may  also  be  assigned,  with  any 
great  probability,  to  Q.  In  this  unduplicated  material 
no  data  are  at  hand  for  distinguishing  QMt  from  simple 
Q;  but  since  QMt  is  the  symbol  for  the  copy  of  Q  used 
by  Matthew,  that  symbol  will  be  employed  here  instead 
of  Q. 

The  criteria  for  distinguishing  Q  material  in  Matthew 
unduplicated  by  Luke  are  the  general  character  of  the 
material,  chiefly  its  eschatological  use  of  the  phrase  "the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  its  Jewish  coloring,  its  antipathy  to 
the  Pharisees,  the  absence  of  indications  of  Matthean 
invention,  and  the  proximity  to  and  connection  with 
other  material  heretofore  attributed  to  Q  or  QMt.  This 
last  item  is  not  so  important  in  Matthew,  on  account 
of  his  habit  of  transposing  his  Q  material ;  yet  within  limits 
it  is  a  valuable  criterion. 

Examination  will  be  made  of  all  passages  in  which  there 
is  reason  to  suspect  the  possible  presence  of  Q  material. 
This  having  been  done  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  a  similar  examination  will  be  made  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke.  The  results  of  these  two  examinations 
will  give  us  data  for  the  comparison  of  Q  as  used  by 
Matthew  and  Q  as  used  by  Luke.     We  shall  then  be  able 

166 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  167 

to  say  whether  the  differences  between  what  we  have 
called  QMt  and  what  we  have  called  QLk  are  too  great 
for  the  assumption  that  they  are  different  recensions  of 
the  same  ground-document.  Matter  already  assigned  to 
Q  (or  QMt  or  QLk)  will  not  be  examined  again.  As 
the  sayings  reported  in  each  Gospel  are  examined,  in 
cases  where  the  material  is  rejected  from  QMt  or  QLk, 
suggestions  will  be  made  as  to  possible  or  probable 
sources. 

TWO  BEATITUDES 
(Mt  V,  4-5) 
Many  manuscripts  invert  the  order  of  these  beatitudes. 
Vs.  4a  is  a  quotation  from  Ps  xxxvii,  IL  Vs.  5  sounds  like 
a  reminiscence  of  Ps  cxxvi,  5,  and  Isa  Ixi,  2.  The  tendency 
to  apply  prophecy  to  Jesus  is  especially  strong  in  Matthew; 
but  whether  this  should  be  charged  to  him  or  his  source 
remains  to  be  determined.  The  T'''Z'Z  of  the  Hebrew,  or 
the  expto'cf  of  the  Greek,  of  Isa  Ixi,  1,  would  forcibly  sug- 
gest such  application  in  this  case.  Of  the  Judaistic  and 
the  universalistic  tendencies  found  side  by  side  in  Matthew 
it  is  probable  that  the  Judaistic  are  earlier,  and  therefore 
that  they  belonged  in  the  source;  the  universalistic, 
naturally  assumed  to  be  later,  will  be  more  easily  attrib- 
uted to  Matthew.  Aside  from  this  it  is  hardly  to  be 
assumed  that  Matthew  invented  any  beatitudes  on  his 
own  account.  From  both  these  considerations  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  conclude  that  these  two  beatitudes  were  added 
to  Q  before  it  reached  Matthew. 

FOUR   MORE    beatitudes 
(Mt  V,  7-10) 
For  vs.  7  there  is  no  close  Old  Testament  exemplar, 
tho  Joel  ii,  13,  has  been  suggested.     The  suggestion  is  the 


168  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

more  plausible  since  the  same  verse  would  also  have 
served  as  an  indirect  source  of  the  next  beatitude  in  vs.  8. 
There  is  no  reason  for  crediting  Matthew  with  the  manu- 
facture of  either  of  these  beatitudes.  Vs.  8  may  be 
reminiscent  of  Ps  xxiv,  4;  li,  10;  Ixxiii,  1,  as  well  as  of 
the  verse  in  Joel.  " They  shall  see  God"  is  probably  used 
here  in  an  eschatological  sense.  An  expression  com- 
bining the  ideas  and  in  part  the  wording  of  vss.  8  and  9  is 
found  in  Heb  xii,  14:  Elprjvrjv  Stcb/cere  .  .  .  .  ov  x^p'i-^ 
ovSels  oxf/eraL  tov  Kvpiov.  If  this  is  not  a  reminiscence 
of  these  beatitudes  in  Matthew,  it  at  least  embodies  a 
similar  tradition.  The  biKaioabv-qs  of  vs.  10  is  peculiar 
to  Matthew  among  the  Gospels.  From  its  Judaistic 
coloring  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Matthew's  Q  rather  than  to 
the  evangelist  himself.  If  I  Peter  iii,  14,  be  allowed  to  be 
a  direct  reference  to  this  beatitude,  this  will  heighten  the 
probability  that  all  these  beatitudes  were  added  to  Q 
before  its  use  by  Matthew.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
Matthew  found  in  Q  only  the  beatitudes  now  standing  in 
Luke,  and  that  he  added  these  others  (also  making  cor- 
rection in  those  now  duplicated  in  Luke),  not  inventing 
these  himself,  but  possibly  taking  them  from  an  oral 
tradition,  or  from  a  separate  written  source.  But  this 
theory  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  much  more  complicated 
and  less  probable  than  the  one  here  advocated.  It  is 
quite  out  of  the  question  that  Luke  should  have  found 
these  six  beatitudes  in  his  Q  and  should  have  omitted 
them.  Yet  the  beatitudes  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke 
are  by  all  scholars  attributed  to  Q.  Harnack  is  undoubt- 
edly correct  in  saying,  "The  beatitudes  certainly  circu- 
lated in  various  recensions  from  the  beginning."^  The 
process  of  alteration  and  accretion  would  begin  long  before 
the  days  of  Matthew. 

'  Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  52. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  169 

''ye  are  the  light  of  the  world" 

(Mt  V,  14) 

In  the  Johannine  tradition  this  saying  has  become  "I 
am  the  light  of  the  world."  Like  the  saying,  ''Ye  are 
the  salt  of  the  earth"  (in  Mt  v,  13),  it  emphasizes,  as 
against  Luke's  version,  the  direct  address  of  the  beatitudes 
and  the  conjoined  sayings  to  the  disciples.  It  probably 
stood  in  Matthew's  Q. 


"let  your  light  shine" 

(Mt  V,  16) 

The  intervening  vs.  15  is  found  in  Luke.  With  that 
verse  omitted,  the  connection  between  vss.  14  and  16  is 
improved.  I  Peter  ii,  12,  is  a  reminiscence,  or  almost  a  di- 
rect quotation,  of  vs.  16.  Of  vss.  13a,  14,  and  16  it  should 
be  observed  that,  while  they  are  unduplicated  in  Luke, 
they  change  the  character  of  all  the  words  in  their  con- 
text from  the  character  which  those  words  have,  so  far  as 
they  are  duplicated,  in  Luke;  for  they  make  of  them  no 
longer  general  remarks,  but  words  of  extremely  earnest 
exhortation  addressed  directly  to  the  disciples.  It  is 
extremely  unlikely  that  Matthew  should  have  found 
the  sayings  in  Q  as  mere  general  remarks,  and  should 
himself  have  given  them  this  character  of  pointed  exhorta- 
tion by  inserting  the  words,  "Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth," 
"Ye  are  the  Ught  of  the  world,"  etc.  But  it  is  equally 
improbable  that  Luke  should  have  found  these  pointed 
words  in  his  recension  of  Q,  and  should  by  their  omission 
have  degraded  the  sayings  to  the  rank  of  mere  general 
observations.  The  best  way  to  save  these  sayings  for  Q 
is  by  the  hypothesis  of  the  recensions. 


170  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

various  sayings  from  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
(Mt  V,  17,  19-24,  27-28) 

Concerning  the  section  v,  17-48,  Hawkins  says,  "I 
would  place  this  section  by  itself  as  one  which  we  may 
regard  as  more  likely  to  have  formed  part  of  Q  than  any 
other  which  is  to  be  found  in  a  single  Gospel."^  Yet  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  in  the  section  of  which  Hawkins  makes 
this  statement  there  are  eleven  verses  (vss.  18,  25,  26, 32, 39, 
40,  42,  44-47)  which  are  not  "found  in  a  single  Gospel," 
but  which  have  very  close  parallels  in  Luke,  and  would 
on  this  latter  consideration  be  assigned  to  Q.  This 
fact  heightens  the  probability  that  the  unduplicated 
verses  should  also  be  assigned  to  some  form  of  that 
document.  Only  those  verses  are  considered  here  which 
have  no  parallel  in  Luke. 

Thruout  these  verses  there  is  a  strong  Judaistic  coloring. 
They  may  be  compared  in  this  respect  with  such  other  New 
Testament  passages  as  Rom  iii,  31 ;  x,  4;  Jas  ii,  10;  II  Pet 
ii,  14.  The  words, "  till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away  "  at  the 
beginning  of  vs.  18  do  not  quite  agree  with  the  words  "  until 
all  things  be  fulfilled"  at  the  end  of  the  verse;  the  latter 
words  have  been  suggested  by  Schmiedel  as  being  a  gloss. 
If,  with  the  two  verses  that  follow  them,  they  be  not 
such  a  gloss,  they  are,  says  Schmiedel,^  not  from  the 
final  editor,  who  does  not  care  for  Jewish  legalism,  but 
from  some  earlier  editor.  In  other  words,  universally 
attributed  as  the  section  is  to  Q,  these  words  were  not  in 
Luke's  version  of  that  document,  and  it  is  inconceivable 
that  Matthew  should  have  added  them.  They  are  part 
of  the  accretion  that  took  place  in  Matthew's  recension  of 
Q  before  it  reached  Matthew.     Harnack,  however,  main- 

1  Oxford  Studies,  p.  133. 

2  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  Vol.  II,  col.  1864. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  171 

tains  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  attributing  the 
words  to  Jesus  himself.  Vs.  20  illustrates  the  unchrono- 
logical  placing  of  the  sayings,  since  it  implies  that  the 
break  with  the  pharisees  has  already  occurred.  In  vss. 
21  and  22  is  the  word  evoxos,  occurring  four  times; 
Matthew  uses  it  in  one  other  passage  where  he  has  taken 
it  from  Mark,  who  uses  it  twice;  but  Luke  consistently 
avoids  it,  both  in  his  Gospel  and  in  Acts.  Unchrono- 
logical  in  their  setting  are  also  the  words  in  vss.  23-24; 
they  were  evidently  spoken  in  Jerusalem,  not  in  Galilee. 
They  would  not  have  been  added  from  an  oral  tradition, 
much  less  invented,  in  times  as  late  as  those  of  the  final 
editor  of  the  Gospel. 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  OFFENSES 
(Mt  V,  29-30) 
For  this  saying  there  is  a  doublet  in  Mt  xviii,  8-9, 
taken  from  Mk  ix,  43-48.  Mark  may  in  this  passage 
also  have  been  following  Q.  That  this  saying  should 
have  been  absent  from  Luke's  recension  of  Q,  while  present 
in  that  of  both  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  that  it  should 
also,  as  Dr.  Stanton  maintains,  have  been  absent  from 
Luke's  copy  of  Mark,  seems  rather  too  much  of  a  coinci- 
dence. But  the  saying  is  like  several  others  which  Luke 
omits  because  of  their  strong  tincture  of  asceticism,  or 
because  the  instructions  in  them  might  be  understood  in 
too  literal  a  way.  Whether  it  was  or  was  not  in  Luke's 
recension  of  Q,  its  character  and  connection  seem  to  indi- 
cate its  presence  in  Matthew's  recension  of  that  document. 

THE    COMMANDMENT   ABOUT   DIVORCE 
(Mt  V,  31) 
Like  vss.  21,  27,  33,  38,  and  43  of  this  same  chapter, 
this  verse  quotes  an  Old  Testament  commandment,  as 


172  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

introductory  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  upon  the  subject  of 
that  command.  Since  much  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  upon 
these  items  is  duphcated  in  Luke,  but  this  quotation  of 
the  Old  Testament  commandment  is  omitted  by  him  each 
time,  the  quotation  will  be  ascribed  either  to  Matthew  or 
his  source.  The  fact  that  it  is  his  source,  and  not  the 
final  editor  (who  for  convenience  is  all  along  here  called 
Matthew),  who  is  responsible  for  the  Judaistic  coloring 
of  the  Gospel,  the  universalistic  tendency  being  attributed 
to  Matthew,  inclines  us  to  assign  all  these  verses  in  quo- 
tation of  the  commandments  to  QMt. 

ABOUT  OATHS 
(Mt  V,  .33-37) 
This  passage  has  also  a  strong  Judaistic  coloring.  It 
is  reminiscent  of  Ps  xlviii,  3.  Most  students  assign  it 
simply  to  Q.  If  it  stood  in  Luke's  recension  of  that 
document,  the  same  non-Jewish  bias  which  is  observable 
in  many  of  his  omissions  of  Marcan  material  would  account 
for  his  omission  of  the  saying.  It  is  neither  possible  nor 
necessary  to  prove  that  these  verses  were  not  in  Luke's 
recension.  But  considering  their  character  and  their  con- 
text, it  is  much  more  likely  that  Matthew  took  them  from 
his  recension  of  Q  than  from  any  other  source  known  to  us. 

the  second  mile 

(Mt  V,  41) 

This  sounds  like  a  secondary  accretion.  It  adds  little 
or  nothing  to  the  force  of  the  injunction,  and  rather  inter- 
rupts the  connection  between  vss.  40  and  42.  It  may  have 
been  added  by  Matthew  from  some  source  of  his  own;  but 
more  probably  stood  in  Matthew's  Q. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  173 

ANOTHER  OLD  TESTAMENT  COMMANDMENT 
(Mt  V,  43) 
In  this  verse  and  the  five  others  which  quote  the 
commandments,  the  word  eppedri  occurs;  it  is  not  used 
by  Mark  or  Luke,  and  by  Matthew  is  used  only  in  these 
verses.  So  far  as  this  may  be  said  to  throw  any  hght 
upon  the  origin  of  these  verses,  it  would  indicate  their 
presence  in  Matthew's  recension  of  Q,  rather  than  their 
invention  or  addition  by  Matthew. 

ABOUT   ALMS-GIVING 

(Mt  vi,  1-4) 

Dr.  Robinson,  in  his  Study  of  the  Gospels,^  maintains, 
quite  correctly,  that  Matthew's  chap,  vi  breaks  the 
connection  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  If  it  is  omitted, 
the  connection  is  not  only  better,  but  is  the  same  as  that 
of  Luke's  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Plain.  He  also  considers 
that  Mt  vi,  7-15,  breaks  the  connection  between  the 
verses  that  immediately  precede  and  immediately  follow 
them.  He  therefore  concludes  that  Mt  vi,  1-5,  16-lS, 
at  one  time  had  a  separate  existence  of  its  own.  This 
is  not  impossible.  The  disarrangement  by  the  insertion 
of  chap,  vi  is  indeed  obvious.  Bacon,  in  his  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  and  Votaw,  in  his  article  under  the  same  title 
in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  bring  out  the  same 
composite  character  of  the  Sermon  as  Matthew  has  it. 
But  much  of  this  material  which  Matthew  has  inserted 
in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  duplicated  word  for  word 
in  other  connections  in  Luke,  and  so  is  uniformly  accredited 
to  Q.  This  creates  a  presumption  that  the  rest  of  this 
interpolated  material,  especially  where  it  is  obviously 
homogeneous  in  character  with  the  Q  material  generally, 

'  p.  78. 


174  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

was  taken  by  Matthew  from  his  recension  of  Q.  It  is 
not  contended  that  none  of  this  material  which  Matthew 
has  here  inserted  and  which  is  nowhere  duplicated  in 
Luke  was  in  Luke's  recension;  it  is  only  contended  that 
since  Matthew's  recension  and  Luke's  recension  are 
demonstrated  to  have  been  different  from  each  other  in 
certain  passages,  it  is  fair  to  press  the  argument  from  this 
difference  to  its  reasonable  limit,  and  assume  that  much  if 
not  most  of  this  logian  matter  peculiar  to  Matthew  stood 
before  him  in  his  source.  In  the  case  of  the  verses 
now  before  us,  however,  it  seems  extremely  improbable 
that  Luke  with  his  interest  in  alms-giving  (see  Lk  xi,  41; 
xii,  33)  should  have  found  them  in  his  source  and  have 
omitted  them. 

ABOUT   PRAYER 

(Mt  vi,  5-8) 

This  sounds  like  a  "midrash"  on  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
There  are  several  Matthean  words  in  the  passage. 
Miados  is  used  ten  times  by  Matthew  as  against  once  by 
Mark  and  thrice  in  Luke's  Gospel.  BarToXoyeco  is  found 
here  only  in  the  New  Testament,  and  not  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  HoXvXoyla  is  found  here  only  in  the  New  Testament. 
'Etaa/couoj  is  an  infrequent  word  in  the  New  Testament, 
being  used  only  in  this  passage,  in  Luke's  chap,  i,  once 
in  Acts,  and  twice  in  the  Epistles.  'A7ro5t5co/xt  is  used 
eighteen  times  by  Matthew;  seven  of  these  uses  are 
found  in  the  section  xviii,  25-34,  and  three  in  the  undu- 
plicated  verses  vi,  4,  6,  18.  It  is  used  once  by  Mark 
and  eight  times  by  Luke  in  his  Gospel.  These  facts  are 
hardly  enough  to  estabhsh  any  verdict  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  section  now  in  question,  tho  they  would  rather 
look  toward  Matthew's  derivation  of  it,  with  its  corre- 
sponding sections  vi,  1-4,  and  vi,  16-18,  from  some  written 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  175 

source.  Such  being  the  case,  Matthew's  recension  of  Q 
will  certainly  fit  the  requirements  better  than  any  other 
known  document. 

ABOUT  FASTING 
(Mt  vi,  16-18) 
If  the  Lord's  Prayer,  which  Luke  gives  in  another  and 
better  connection,  be  omitted  from  Matthew's  chap, 
vi,  we  shall  have  here  three  consecutive  sections  which 
have  very  striking  literary  resemblances;  they  are  the 
sections  on  alms-giving,  on  prayer,  and  on  fasting.  That 
these  should  have  found  no  echo  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
if  they  stood  in  his  source,  is  strange;  especially  con- 
sidering his  peculiar  interest  in  alms-giving  and  prayer. 
As  to  the  literary  affinities  among  these  three  sections, 
the  use  of  /jLiardds,  four  times,  has  been  noted.  The 
phrase  d7rexoi;o-ii'  tov  ixiadbv  avroov  occurs  three  times;  the 
longer  phrase  eu  rco  kpvittoo,  koI  6  Tarrjp  aov  6  ^Xeircop  iv  raJ 
KpvTTTU)  aTrod(j)(T€L  (TOL,  three  times. ^  Quite  without  these 
recurrences  of  the  same  formulae,  the  form  and  sentiment 
of  the  three  sections  are  so  markedly  the  same  as  to  sug- 
gest that  they  were  originally  consecutive,  and  that  they 
have  been  taken  from  one  written  source.  No  more 
probable  source  can  be  suggested  than  QMt. 

PEARLS  BEFORE  SWINE 
(Mt  vii,  6) 
Schmiedel  has  suggested  that  this  fragment  may 
"indicate  a  time  when  the  eucharist  had  been  so  long 
celebrated  as  materially  to  influence  the  general  tradition 
of  the  doctrines  of  Jesus."  A  passage  somewhat  similar 
in  tone  is  that  occurring  in  the  story  of  the  Canaanitish 

1  Kpv(l>aiia  is  in  vs.  18  substituted  for  kpvtttu,  used  in  4  and  6. 


176  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

woman:  ''it  is  not  proper  to  take  the  bread  of  the  chil- 
dren and  give  it  to  the  dogs."  Matthew  takes  this  storj- 
from  Mark;  but,  significantly,  he  has  omitted  one  sen- 
tence of  Mark's  which  tones  down  the  Jewish  particular- 
ism of  the  passage,  "let  the  children  first  be  fed."  He 
also  inserts  in  that  story  the  sentence,  not  in  Mark,  "I 
am  not  sent  except  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel," 
which  corresponds  somewhat  closely  with  this  statement 
concerning  the  command  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  also 
peculiar  to  Matthew,  "Into  the  way  of  the  nations  do  not 
go,  and  into  a  city  of  the  Samaritans  do  not  enter;  but 
go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  It  is 
only  fair  to  admit  that  these  instances,  in  which  Matthew 
heightens,  once  by  insertion  and  once  by  omission,  the 
Jewish  coloring  in  a  story  taken  from  Mark,  tell  against 
the  theory  generally  advocated  by  the  writer,  that  the 
Judaistic  features  of  Matthew's  Gospel  are  referable  to 
his  source,  and  the  universalistic  features  to  Matthew 
himself.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  vs.  6  has  no  dis- 
cernible connection  in  its  present  context,  and  no  reason 
suggests  itself  for  Matthew's  insertion  of  it,  except  his 
desire  to  retain  what  was  in  his  source.  This  source  may 
have  been  a  special  one,  perhaps  even  an  oral  one;  but 
considering  the  Judaistic  character  of  so  many  sayings 
attributed  to  Matthew's  Q,  that  recension  would  also  fit 
this  saying. 

THE  FALSE  PROPHETS 
(Mt  vii,  15) 
The  mention  of  "the"  false  prophets,  as  a  class  to  be 
avoided,  has  a  late  sound.  It  is  not  found  elsewhere 
in  the  Gospels  except  in  the  "little  apocalypse"  and  in 
Luke  vi,  26.  It  is  not  necessarily  as  late  as  Matthew,  and 
may  fairly  be  assigned  to  his  recension  of  Q. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  177 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  TREES 
(Mt  vii,  19) 
In  an  earlier  place  this  saying  is  attributed  by  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  to  John  the  Baptist.  In  that  earlier 
connection  it  evidently  was  taken  from  Q.  It  probably 
did  not  occur  twice  in  that  document,  but  was  inserted 
here  by  Matthew  from  memory,  being  suggested  naturally 
by  the  context.     It  offers  no  new  Q  material. 

"by  their  fruits" 

(Mt  vii,  20) 
This  verse  is  a  repetition,  with  the  particle  apaye  pre- 
fixed, of  vs.  16.  Vs.  18  is  also  a  repetition  in  the  form  of  a 
declarative  sentence  of  what  is  said  in  vs.  17  in  the  form 
of  a  question.  The  whole  speech  is  considerably  longer 
than  the  corresponding  speech  in  Lk  vi,  43-44.  These 
repetitions  and  duplications  suggest  a  good  deal  of  re- 
working; but  not  the  sort  of  re-working  that  would  be 
done  by  Matthew,  whose  tendenc}^  is  to  condense  instead 
of  to  expand.  Vs.  20  may  be  a  gloss,  tho  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  manuscript  authority  against  it.  There  is  no  new 
Q  material  here. 

AN  oft-repeated  FORMULA 
(Mt  vii,  2Sa) 
This  formula  must  be  considered,  as  it  is  also  found  in 
five  other  places  in  Matthew  (xi,  1;  xiii,  53;  xix,  1;  xxvi, 
1).  The  first  six  words  of  the  formula  are  precisely  alike 
in  all  five  instances,  Kal  eyevero  ore  ireKeaev  6  'Irjaovs. 
In  two  instances  these  words  are  followed  by  the  words 
Tovs  \6yovs  TovTovs ;  in  one  instance  by  the  words  iravTas 
Tovs  Xoyovs  TOVTOVS]  in  another  instance  by  the  words 
TOLS    Trapaj3o\as    ro6ras.     In    these    four    instances    the 


178  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

formula  not  only  follows  a  group  of  sayings,  but  is  followed 
by  a  narrative  section;  and  so  apparently  marks  the 
transition  from  one  of  Matthew's  sources  to  another.  In 
the  fifth  instance,  however,  the  closing  words  of  the 
formula  are  dLardaacou  rots  d6)8eKa  fxaOrjrals  avTov;  and 
in  this  instance  the  formula  does  not  mark  a  transition 
from  Q  to  Mark,  but  is  followed  as  it  is  preceded  by  Q 
material.  It  is  generally  argued  that  since  the  formula 
does  not  occur  in  either  Mark  or  Luke,  and  since  the 
construction  eylvero  ore  does  not  occur  in  Matthew 
outside  of  these  five  passages,  but  is  found  twenty-two 
times  in  Luke,  the  formula  was  each  time  taken  by 
Matthew  from  his  source.  This  source  must  have  been 
Matthew's  recension  of  Q,  since  the  formula  is  always 
found  with  Q  material.  Considering  Matthew's  tend- 
ency to  repeat  himself,  all  that  need  be  affirmed  is 
that  in  at  least  one  of  the  five  instances  Matthew  did 
find  the  formula  in  Q.  It  certainly  could  not  have 
occurred  five  times,  or  even  three  or  four  times,  in  Luke's 
source,  and  have  been  each  time  omitted  by  him. 

the  conclusion  of  the  story  of  the 
centurion's  servant 
(Mt  viii,  13) 
Harnack  thinks  this  verse  of  Matthew's  and  the  corre- 
sponding verse  in  Luke  (Lk  vii,  10)  were  not  in  Q,  tho  the 
rest  of   the  story  was.     But   the   deviation  here  is  no 
greater  than  it  is  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  story,  in  the 
item  of  the  messengers.     Matthew  has  separated  this  con- 
clusion of  the  story  from  the  body  of  it  by  his  insertion 
of  Jesus'  saying,  "Many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
west,"  which  Luke  gives  in  another  context  (Lk  xiii,  28- 
29).     Luke's  conclusion  evidently  belongs  with  his  version 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  179 

of  the  story,  for  it  contains  the  reference  to  the  messengers 
who  do  not  appear  in  Matthew's  version.  Some  manu- 
scripts give  the  conclusion  to  the  story  in  Matthew  in 
words  almost  identical  with  Luke's.  If  this  deviation 
in  manuscripts  suggests  that  the  verse  in  Matthew  may 
be  a  gloss,  this  suggestion  may  be  held  to  be  strengthened 
by  the  assumption  that  if  Matthew  himself  had  inserted 
this  concluding  verse  he  would  hardly  have  cut  it  off 
from  the  rest  of  the  story  by  the  saying  "Many  shall 
come,"  etc.  Chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the  alternative 
reading  in  5<,  and  the  ease  with  which  a  gloss  would  be 
suggested  to  a  scribe  who  had  the  Lucan  narrative  also 
before  him,  the  writer  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the 
verse  is  a  later  addition. 

"l  WILL  HAVE  MERCY  AND  NOT  SACRIFICE" 
(Mt  ix,  13) 
There  is  a  dupHcate  of  this  quotation  in  Mt  xii,  7. 
In  each  instance  Matthew  has  inserted  the  quotation 
into  a  Marcan  narrative.  Considering  the  fact  of  this 
insertion  in  each  case,  and  the  absence  of  a  duplicate  in 
Luke,  the  verses  may  be  ascribed  to  Matthew,  perhaps 
upon  the  basis  of  an  oral  tradition. 

THE  HEALING  OF  TWO  BLIND  MEN 
(Mt  ix,  27-31) 
There  is  a  strong  similarity  between  this  story  and 
the  story  of  the  healing  of  two  blind  men  near  Jericho 
(Mt  XX,  29-34).  In  the  latter  case  Matthew  substitutes 
the  two  men  for  Bartimaeus  in  the  story  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  The  source  is  apparently  a  special  one,  perhaps 
an  oral  tradition  influenced  by  Mk  x,  46-52. 


180  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

THE  healing  of  A  DUMB  MAN 
(Mt  ix,  32-34) 
Vs.  34  is  a  doublet  of  Mt  xii,  24;  the  latter  is  from  Mk 
iii,  22,  where  Mark  also  appears  to  be  following  Q.  Per- 
haps ix,  27-34,  has  been  inserted  at  just  this  place,  in 
order  to  warrant  the  statement  of  Jesus  to  John  the  Bap- 
tist that  "the  blind  see  and  the  deaf  hear."  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  assign  it  to  a  special  literary  source. 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO  THE  DISCIPLES 
(Mt  X,  5-8) 
These  verses  have  a  strong  Judaistic  coloring:  "Into 
a  way  of  the  Gentiles  do  not  go,  and  into  a  city  of  the 
Samaritans  do  not  enter,"  etc.  They  also  betray  the 
expectation  of  the  early  coming  of  the  parousia.  These 
two  items  are  inconsistent  with  the  invention  of  these 
verses  by  Matthew.  They  must  have  arisen  long  before 
Matthew's  time.  Yet  they  are  imbedded  in  Q  material. 
No  theory  of  their  origin  suits  all  these  facts  so  well  as 
that  they  are  a  portion  of  the  Q  material  which  was 
added  to  that  document  after  its  original  compilation, 
and  in  the  recension  that  was  finally  used  by  Matthew. 
It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Matthew  here  makes 
Jesus  teach  his  disciples  (vs.  7)  the  same  formula  which 
he  himself  had  learned  from  John  the  Baptist. 

FURTHER  INSTRUCTIONS  TO  THE  DISCIPLES 
(Mt  X,  166-25,  41-42) 
Of  the  chapter  in  which  this  section  occurs  Mr,  Streeter 
says  that  Matthew  begins  with  Mark,  adds  some  Q  ma- 
terial parallel  to  Luke's  Q  material  in  the  same  connection, 
then  Q  material  unparalleled,  then  Q  material  paralleled  in 
other  connections  in  Luke,  then  material  from  a  totally 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  181 

different  part  of  Mark.^  The  verses  enumerated  here  are 
not  paralleled  in  either  Mark  or  Luke.  They  are  not 
like  the  verses,  for  the  most  part,  which  Matthew  and 
Luke  agree  in  taking  from  Q;  and  they  show  marked 
difference  in  some  respects  from  those  which  we  have 
thus  far  assigned  to  Matthew's  recension  of  Q.  In  his 
Apostolic  Age  Professor  James  Hardy  Ropes^  suggests 
that  at  least  one  purpose  of  the  collection  of  Jesus'  sayings 
was  ''to  furnish  a  kind  of  handbook  of  missionary  prac- 
tice for  those  times."  These  verses,  better  almost  than 
any  other  section  out  of  the  instructions  to  the  disciples, 
answer  this  purpose.  If  they  rest  upon  words  of  Jesus 
spoken  at  the  time  he  sent  out  his  disciples,  they  are  at 
least  colored  by  the  needs  of  Christian  missionaries  who 
went  out  toward  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age.  They 
betray  the  conviction  that  the  time  of  the  parousia  is 
near.  As  coming  from  Jesus  they  contain  a  prediction 
so  obviously  unfulfilled  as  to  make  their  later  invention 
and  ascription  to  him  very  difficult.  On  the  other  hand 
no  words  ascribed  to  him  would  by  themselves  more 
easily  originate  in  the  times  of  the  early  Christian  missions. 
Considering  their  position  here,  and  giving  due  weight  to 
Professor  Ropes's  suggestion,  it  seems  much  more  probable 
that  they  are  taken  by  Matthew  from  some  written  source 
than  from  an  oral  tradition.  If  so,  no  better  source  can 
be  posited  than  Matthew's  recension  of  Q. 

A    SAYING   ABOUT   ELIJAH 
(Mt  xi,  14) 
Like  the  reference  to  Elijah  in  Mk  ix,  12,  this  verse 
sounds  like  a  parenthesis.     It  adds  nothing  to  the  con- 
text,  and   rather  interrupts   than  furthers   the  matter. 

'  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  149. 
"'  Pp.  40-42. 


182  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

If  not  inserted  by  Matthew  from  some  unknown,  perhaps 
oral,  source,  it  may  perhaps  best  be  considered  as  a  gloss. 

"he  that  hath  ears,  let  him  hear" 
(Mt  xi,  15) 
This  is  a  proverbial  saying  occurring  seven  times  in  the 
Gospels  (eight  times  in  the  received  text);  three  times 
in  Matthew,  twice  each  in  Mark  and  Luke.  It  also 
occurs  eight  times  in  the  Apocalypse.  Each  evangehst 
has  a  form  of  his  own,  to  which  he  adheres  thruout.  The 
saying  sounds  here  as  if  it  were  intended  to  drive  home 
what  has  just  been  said  about  Elijah,  and  may  with  pro- 
priety be  assigned  to  the  same  hand  as  the  preceding  verse. 

THE     OCCASION     OF    PRONOUNCING     WOES    UPON     THE 
GALILEAN    CITIES 
(Mt  xi,  20) 
This  verse  is  quoted  here  chiefly  because  it  furnishes 
so  excellent  an  illustration  of  the  nature  of  the  intro- 
ductory formulae  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke  in  con- 
junction with  their  Q  material.     Sometimes,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  such  an  introduction  is  present 
in  Luke  and  absent  in  Matthew.     In  the  present  instance 
Matthew  alone  has  it.     Yet  few  passages  from  Q   dis- 
close a  closer  verbal  agreement  with  the  corresponding 
passage  in  Luke  than  the  passage  to  which  this  verse  is 
an  introduction.     In  all  such  instances  as  this  the  writer 
sees  no  difficulty  in  ascribing  the  introductions  to  the 
evangelist  in  whose  pages  they  are  found. 

REASON  ASSIGNED  FOR  THE  PRONUNCIATION  OF  THE  WOES 
(Mt  xi,  236-24) 
Following  the  woes,   Matthew  alone  has  this  state- 
ment of  the  reasons  for  their  being  given.     He  has  a 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  183 

doublet  for  vs.  24  in  x,  15.  As  this  latter  is  paralleled 
by  Lk  X,  12,  it  may  in  that  context  be  assigned  to  Q; 
here  it  may  be  assigned  either  to  Matthew  or  one  of  his 
early  editors.     There  is  at  least  no  new  Q  material  here. 

"come  unto  me" 
(Mt  xi,  28-30) 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  unusually  fine 
utterance  could  have  been  in  Luke's  copy  of  Q  and  could 
have  been  omitted  by  him.  Yet  of  the  five  scholars  quoted 
in  Table  II  (pp.  110-11),  Wellhausen  alone  attributes 
it  to  Q.  The  others  all  attribute  the  preceding  section 
to  Q,  but  stop  at  vs.  27,  where  the  parallelism  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  breaks  off.  This  is  necessary,  of 
course,  upon  the  assumption  that  nothing  should  be 
attributed  to  Q  except  what  is  thus  paralleled.  But  if 
anything  stood  in  Matthew's  recension  of  Q  that  was  not 
also  in  Luke's,  certainly  these  verses  stood  there.  Weiss's 
remarks  concerning  them  indicate  that  he  has  no  reason 
for  assigning  them,  as  he  does,  to  a  special  source,  except 
the  fact  that  they  do  not  appear  in  Luke.  He  says 
"Since  these  words  are  not  in  Luke  we  have  no  right  to 
refer  them  to  Q.  This  is  not  to  say  that  they  are  the  work 
of  Matthew;  they  have  been  taken  from  another  source, 
oral  or  written. "^  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Montefiore 
that  these  verses  are  largely  made  up  of  quotations. 
"The  last  bit  of  vs.  29  comes  from  Jer  xi,  7,  and  the  rest 
is  an  adapted  echo  of  Sirach  li,  23  seq."^  The  parallel, 
however,  as  Montefiore  also  says,  covers  vss.  25-27  as 
well  as  those  now  under  consideration.  Loisy^  argues 
that  the  words  cannot  safely  be  ascribed  to  Jesus,  but 

1  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  I,  324. 

2  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  I,  608. 

3  Quoted  by  Montefiore,  I,  610. 


184  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

adds,  ''It  may  be  readily  admitted  that  the  evangelist 
found  them  in  the  collection  of  Logia." 

A  SAYING  ABOUT  THE  LAW 
(Mt  xii,  5-7) 
This  saying  occurs,  not  in  the  midst  of  Q  material,  but 
as  an  appendix  to  a  discussion  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
both  take  from  Mark.  The  passage  seems  to  be  well 
attested  textually.  Considering  its  context,  and  its 
relation  to  the  material  immediately  preceding,  it  seems 
natural  to  assign  the  verses  either  to  Matthew  himself  or 
to  some  early  editor,  rather  than  to  seek  a  special  source 
for  them  or  to  attribute  them  to  Matthew's  Q.  Vs.  7 
has  already  been  considered  in  connection  with  ix,  13. 
If  the  avaLTLovs  in  this  latter  verse  were  singular  instead 
of  plural  it  would  certainly  be  taken  as  a  reference  to  the 
condemnation  and  death  of  Jesus;  indeed,  it  may  natu- 
rally, tho  not  with  so  much  assurance,  be  so  taken  as 
it  stands. 

AN    OLD    TESTAMENT   QUOTATION 

(Mt  xii,  17-21) 

This  long  quotation,  occurring  as  it  does  in  the  midst 

of  a  Marcan  narrative,  may  be  ascribed  either  to  Matthew 

or  one  of  his  sources;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  such 

quotations  were  part  of  Q. 

"generation  of  vipers" 
(Mt  xii,  34a) 
TepurjfjLara  exi-dvoju  is  used  once  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  common  (Mt  iii,  7;  Lk  iii,  7)  and  twice  by 
Matthew  alone.  The  question  in  which  it  occurs  here 
seems  to  render  the  statement  in  vss.  36-37  less  justifiable. 
The  repetition,  not  only  of  the  one  phrase,  but  of  the  idea. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  185 

in  the  section  might  be  taken  to  indicate  that  this  half 
of  a  verse  is  an  addition  either  by  Matthew  or  by  some 
later  hand. 

A  saying  about  the  judgment 
(Mt  xii,  36-37) 
If  Matthew  be  credited  with  the  insertion  of  vs.  34a, 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  added  these  verses  also,  as  a 
corrective  of  the  impression  that  might  be  drawn  from 
the  previous  insertion.  In  character,  however,  the  verses 
are  similar  enough  to  Q,  and  might  be  assigned  to 
Matthew's  recension. 

an  interpretation  of  the  sign  of  JONAH 
(Mt  xii,  40) 

This  verse  occurs  in  a  passage  concerning  the  demand 
for  a  sign,  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  evidently 
taken  from  Q.  Luke's  form  of  the  saying  about  Jonah  is 
evidently  the  original  one.  Matthew's  reference  to  the 
three  days  spent  by  Jesus  ''in  the  heart  of  the  earth"  is 
post  evenium,  and  even  so  cannot  be  early.  It  may  per- 
haps be  taken  for  a  gloss,  or  it  may  have  been  added  by 
Matthew.  It  may  equally  well  have  been  added  by  some 
editor  of  Q  before  that  document  fell  into  Matthew's 
hands;  there  is  nothing  to  determine,  except  that 
the  strong  resemblance,  almost  amounting  to  identity, 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the  rest  of  the  passage  may 
properly  incline  one  toward  the  assumption  of  a  late 
addition. 

the  weed  in  the  field 
(Mt  xiii,  24-30) 

This  parable,  tho  it  has  a  Q  sound  in  the  first  verse,  is 
too  long  for  any  recension  of  that  document.  It  is 
better  assigned  to  a  special  source,  oral  or  written.     The 


186  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

allegorical  character  of  the  parable,  with  its  elaborate 
interpretation  in  vss.  36-43,  seems  to  indicate  its  com- 
paratively late  origin,  and  it  may  be  based  upon  Mk 
iv,  26-29.     At  all  events  it  should  not  be  ascribed  to  Q. 

THE   PARABLES  OF  THE   TREASURE,   THE   PEARL,   THE   FISH- 
NET, AND   THE    SCRIBE    INSTRUCTED    IN    THE    KINGDOM 
(Mt  xiii,  44-52) 

In  this  chapter  Matthew  has  eight  parables.^  The 
parables  of  the  Sower  and  of  the  Mustard  Seed  he  has  taken 
from  Mark.  That  of  the  Yeast  he  and  Luke  have  taken 
from  Q.  That  of  the  Weed  in  the  Field  has  just  been 
assigned  to  some  special  source.  The  four  in  vss.  44-52 
we  assign  to  Matthew  's  recension  of  Q.  The  grounds 
upon  which  this  assignment  is  made  are  the  following: 
the  parables  are  extremely  similar  in  form  and  content 
to  those  that  admittedly  come  from  Q,  as  the  parable 
of  the  Yeast  in  this  same  chapter.  They  are  so  brief  as 
to  come  under  the  category  of  "sayings"  rather  than  of 
"parables"  in  the  ordinary  sense.  They  are,  with  one 
exception,  without  allegorical  or  other  interpretation. 
These  facts  establish  their  general  Q  character.  The 
parable  of  the  Fish-Net,  in  vss.  4^-50,  contains  an  alle- 
gorical interpretation.  Vs.  50  also  contains  the  phrase 
e/cel  earai  6  KKavd/ios  Kal  6  ^pvyixos  rCiv  bbovTu^v,  which 
Matthew  employs  in  five  other  connections.  This  phrase 
occurred  at  least  once  in  Q  (Mt  viii,  12;  Lk  xiii,  28). 

But  in  spite  of  a  tendency  toward  repetition  which 
may  be  observed  in  Matthew,  it  seems  hardly  fair  to 
charge  him  with  having  inserted  the  phrase  in  the  other 
five  places  where  it  occurs.  It  seems  strange  also  that 
Matthew  should  record  the  parables  of  the  Treasure,  the 

1  Sometimes  counted  as  only  seven,  the  similitude  in  vs.  52  not  being 
reckoned  as  a  parable. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  187 

Pearl,  and  the  Converted  Scribe  without  interpretation,  but 
should  himself  be  responsible  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
parable  of  the  Fish-Net.     It  is  much  more  hkely  that  he 
found  the  interpretation,  with  the  parable,  in  his  source. 
In  these  four  parables  obviously  there  are  two  items 
which  most  scholars  would  agree  in  calling  secondary :  the 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Fish-Net, 
and  the  entire  parable  of  the  Converted  Scribe.     Yet  the 
parables  of  the  Pearl  and  the  Treasure  are  as  primary  as 
any  utterances  recorded  of  Jesus.     The  strong  general 
similarity  in  form  and  content  between  these  parables 
and  those  taken  by  Matthew  and  Luke  from  Q  argues 
the  probability  of  their  presence  in  some  form  of  that 
document.     Their  absence  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke  indi- 
cates  their   absence   from   the   recension   in   his   hands. 
And  the  presence  in  them  of  these  secondary  traits  argues 
their  addition  to  Q  at  some  time  after  its  original  com- 
pilation.    All  these  considerations  make  the  assignment 
of  these  four  little  parables  to  QMt  in  a  high  degree 
probable. 

PETER  WALKING  ON  THE  WATER 
(Mt  xiv,  28-31) 
The  presence  of  so  much  narrative  material  in  this 
section  argues  at  once  against  its  derivation  from  any  form 
of  Q.  It  belongs  to  a  cycle  of  Peter-sayings  preserved 
in  Matthew  alone.  The  source  appears  to  have  been  a 
special  one,  very  probably  oral. 

"to  THE  LOST  SHEEP  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  ISRAEL" 

(Mt  XV,  22-24) 
These  verses  are  an  insertion  of  Matthew's  into  the 
story  of  the  Syrophoenician  woman,  which  he  has  copied 
from  Mark.     It  is  worthy  of  note  that  thruout  the  entire 


188  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

story  the  verbal  agreement  is  much  more  shght  than  is 
usual  in  narratives,  especially  such  as  contain  sayings 
of  Jesus,  taken  by  Matthew  from  Mark.  Luke  has  no 
parallel.  Considering  the  very  slight  proportion  of  narra- 
tive, and  the  great  preponderance  of  sayings-material, 
in  the  section,  it  would  not  be  strange  if  it  stood  in  Q. 
If  it  stood  in  Luke's  recension,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward 
non-Jewish  peoples,  as  implied  in  the  story,  would  be 
sufficient  to  account  for  Luke's  omission  of  it.  The 
sentiment  of  vs.  24,  in  particular,  is  extremely  "primary," 
It  could  hardly  have  been  invented  and  ascribed  to  Jesus 
after  his  time.  Mark's  words,  "Let  the  children  first 
be  fed,"  tone  down  the  excessively  Jewish  particularism 
of  Matthew's  account;  even  aside  from  these  words, 
which  are  absent  from  Matthew,  Matthew's  entire  version 
of  the  incident  is  more  primary  than  Mark's.  This 
may  be,  and  has  been,  explained  by  saying  that  Mark's 
story  has  been  worked  over  by  an  editor,  subsequent  to 
Matthew's  use  of  his  Gospel.  But  since  Mark  and  Q 
have  been  shown  to  coincide  in  a  certain  amount  of 
material,  a  simpler  explanation  is  that  they  coincided  in 
this  story  of  the  Syrophoenician  woman;  the  more  primi- 
tive character  of  Matthew's  account  is  then  explained  by 
its  dependence  upon  Q,  which  is  older  than  Mark.  It 
cannot  be  shown  to  have  been  absent  from  Luke's  recen- 
sion, and  its  presence  there  may  be  probable,  but  can- 
not be  demonstrated.  It  is  therefore  assigned — but  with 
some  hesitation — to  QMt. 

A    SUMMARY    OF   JESUs'    HEALING    WORK 
(Mt  XV,  29-31) 
This  little  summary,  like  that  in  Mt  iv,  23-25,  would 
naturally  be  ascribed  to  Matthew.     It  might  be  regarded 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  189 

as  a  re-working  of  Mk  vii,  31,  and  a  substitute  in  general 
terms  for  the  story  which  immediately  follows  that  verse 
in  Mark.'  The  use  by  Matthew  of  such  a  phrase  as  tov 
deov  'laparjX  would  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
cures  are  represented  as  being  worked  outside  of  Jewish 
territory.  With  this  explanation  the  verses  may  be 
ascribed  to  Matthew. 

THE  KEYS  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 
(Mt  xvi,  17-19) 
This  is  another  Peter-section  inserted  in  a  story  taken 
from  Mark.  Luke  has  the  story  but  not  this  insertion. 
The  section  apparently  belongs  to  the  same  cycle  of  Peter- 
stories  with  the  incident  of  the  walking  on  the  water, 
already  considered.  It  should  be  ascribed  to  some  special 
and  undetermined  source.  The  general  character  of  this 
particular  section  would  indicate  its  very  late  origin. 

AN  INSERTION  IN  THE  STORY  OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION 
(Mt  xvii,  6-7) 
No  special  source,  other  at  least  than  oral  tradition, 
is  necessary  to  account  for  so  slight  an  addition.  Yet 
considering  Matthew's  general  tendency  to  condense, 
rather  than  to  expand,  Mark's  narratives,  and  the  faith- 
fulness with  which  he  has  transcribed  the  rest  of  this 
narrative,  it  may  be  easier  to  regard  this  insertion  as  a 
gloss. 

"whosoever   humbles  HIMSELF   AS   THIS   LITTLE    CHILD " 
(Mt  xviii,  4) 
The  verse  immediately  preceding  this  is  found  in  Mark, 
but  in  another  context,  from  where  Matthew  has  evi- 
dently transposed  it  to  this  place.     This  vs.  4  is  found 

»  So  regarded,  apparently,  by  J.  Weiss  in  his  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testa- 
ments, I,  342. 


190  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

in  Matthew  alone.  A  variant  of  it  is  found  in  Mt  xxiii,  12. 
This  latter  is  closely  similar  to,  but  not  identical  with,  the 
saying  twice  given  by  Luke  (Lk  xiv,  11;  xviii,  14).  Con- 
sidering his  dislike  for  doublets,  the  fact  that  the  saying 
occurs  twice  in  Luke  may  naturally  be  taken  to  indicate 
its  presence  in  both  Mark  and  Q.  But  the  verse  under 
consideration  here  can  be  at  most  but  a  reminiscence  of 
the  saying  which  occurs  twice  in  Luke  and  in  Mt  xxiii,  12. 
Considering  the  fact  that  Matthew  is  here  obviously 
exercising  his  talent  at  combination,  the  verse  should 
probably  be  ascribed  to  his  editorial  hand. 

THE    UNFORGIVING    SERVANT 
(Mt  xviii,  23-35) 

Li  spite  of  its  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  this 
parable  is  much  too  long  for  Q,  and  should  be  assigned 
to  a  special  source. 

ABOUT    EUNUCHS 
(Mt  xix,  10-12) 

This  saying  is  appended  to  a  discussion  taken  from 
Mark.  Considering  its  loose  connection  in  the  context, 
it  is  perhaps  safer  to  assume  that  it  has  been  added  from 
some  oral  authority. 

THE  LABORERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD 
(Mt  XX,  1-16) 

The  parable  is  too  long  for  Q,  tho  like  the  Q  parables 
it  has  to  do  with  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  last  verse 
is  an  apparently  proverbial  saying,  for  which  Matthew 
has  a  doublet  in  xix,  30,  and  Luke  a  variant  in  Lk  xiii,  30. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Matthew  191 

THE    TWO    SONS 

(Mt  xxi,  28-32) 
Like   the   other  matter   in   this   vicinity   peeuUar   to 
Matthew,  and  like  the  parables  of  this  length  thruout, 
this  parable  should  be  assigned  to  a  special  source. 

THE  WEDDING  FEAST 
(Mt  xxii,  1-14) 
J.  Weiss  assigns  this  parable,  with  Lk  xiv,  16-24,  to  Q. 
But  upon  the  principle  we  have  been  following  the  parable 
is  too  long  for  Q.  While  it  is  evidently  the  same  parable 
as  that  told  in  Lk  xiv,  16-24,  there  is  clearly  no  literary 
connection  between  Matthew  and  Luke  here.  Both 
Wellhausen  and  Wernle  assign  it  to  Q;  Harnack  and 
Hawkins  to  a  special  source.  This  instance  brings  up 
the  question  of  what  degree  of  literary  similarity  must 
be  present  in  order  to  warrant  the  assumption  of  literary 
connection.  No  words  are  identical  here  except  such  as 
had  to  be  to  enable  two  men  to  tell  the  same  story. 

AGAINST  THE  PHARISEES 
(Mt  xxiii,  2-3,  5,  8-10,  15-22) 
Matthew  here  conflates  his  Q  material  with  his  Marcan 
material.  The  matter  is  partially  duplicated  in  Luke's 
chap.  xi.  The  similarities  and  the  differences  between 
the  Matthean  and  Lucan  versions  are  precisely  such 
features  as  have  led  to  the  hypothesis  of  the  two  recensions. 
The  verses  should  be  assigned  to  QMt. 

THE    PARABLES    OF    THE    TEN    VIRGINS,    THE    TALENTS, 

THE  JUDGMENT 

(Mt  XXV,  1-46) 

The  first  two  of  these  parables  J.  Weiss  assigns  to  Q; 

presumably  on  the  ground  that  parallels  for  them  are 


192  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

found  in  Luke's  chaps,  xii  and  xix.  But  if  Q  be  extended 
to  include  so  many  such  long  parables  as  these,  it  loses 
entirely  its  character  as  a  collection  of  ''sayings."  More- 
over, the  parallelism  between  Matthew's  and  Luke's 
versions  of  these  two  parables  is  extremely  slight.  The 
subject-matter  is  the  same,  but  there  is  no  indication  of 
dependence  upon  a  common  written  source.  The  parable 
of  the  Judgment  is  peculiar  to  Matthew.  It  seems  better 
to  assign  all  three  of  these  parables  to  a  special  source. 

"twelve  legions  of  angels" 
(Mt  xxvi,  52-54) 

This  is  an  insertion  of  Matthew's  in  the  story  which 
he  has  taken  from  Mark.  There  is  no  indication  of  Q 
in  it. 

We  have  now  gone  over  all  the  logian  sections  of 
Matthew  unparalleled  in  either  Mark  or  Luke.  We 
have  found  some  of  these  that  ought,  in  our  judgment, 
to  be  assigned  to  Matthew's  recension  of  Q.  This 
assignment  cannot  claim  to  be  anything  more  than  a 
suggestion;  in  many  instances,  however,  it  may  reach 
a  very  high  degree  of  probability;  and  we  have  tried 
to  restrict  it  to  such  instances.  By  saying  that  a  certain 
section  should  be  assigned  to  a  "special  source,"  it  is 
not  meant  that  this  is  one  and  the  same  source  for  all 
sections  so  assigned;  but  only  that  these  sections  cannot 
be  assigned  either  to  Matthew  or  to  his  recension  of  Q. 
In  a  few  instances  I  have  ventured  to  suggest  an  oral 
rather  than  a  written  source.  Further  comments  will 
be  made  upon  this  analysis  when  a  similar  study  has 
been  made  of  the  sections  peculiar  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Q  IN  THE  SINGLE  TRADITION  OF  LUKE  (QLk) 

The  single  tradition  of  Luke  will  now  be  examined 
with  reference  to  possible  Q  material  unparalleled  in 
Matthew.  Narrative  material  will  not  be  considered. 
As  Luke  has  omitted  much  more  of  Mark  than  Matthew 
has,  and  as  he  has  a  much  larger  amount  of  non-Marcan 
material  which  obviously  bears  no  sign  of  having  stood 
in  any  form  of  Q,  it  is  natural  to  expect  the  additions  to 
our  total  of  Q  matter  to  be  much  less  in  the  single  tra- 
dition of  Luke  than  of  Matthew. 

THE  PREACHING  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 
(Lk  iii,  10-14) 
This  section  in  Luke  follows  immediately  the  descrip- 
tion of  John's  preaching  which  Luke  and  Matthew 
have  taken  from  Q.  It  is  a  natural  supposition  that  it 
stood  in  Luke's  Q,  tho  not  in  Matthew's,  just  as  the  dis- 
cussion between  Jesus  and  John  at  the  baptism  stood  in 
Matthew's  but  not  in  Luke's.  But  there  is  one  thing 
which  indicates  either  that  it  did  not  so  stand,  or  that 
it  has  been  worked  over  by  Luke  in  a  manner  peculiar 
to  him.  That  is  the  presence  of  dialogue.  If  this  dia- 
logue appeared  only  in  those  sayings  of  Jesus  that  appear 
in  Luke  but  not  in  Matthew,  and  that  are  of  a  character 
to  have  come  from  any  form  of  Q,  we  should  pick  out 
this  item  as  a  characteristic  of  the  recension  used  by 
Luke.  But  dialogue  is  also  a  characteristic  of  many  of 
the  Lucan  parables  which  could  not  under  any  hypothesis 
be  attributed  to  Q.     In  spite  of  its  general  resemblance 

193 


194  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

to  the  Q  matter  just  preceding,  it  seems  best,  therefore, 
to  attribute  this  little  section  to  some  peculiar  Lucan 
source. 

THE  INITIAL  PREACHING  OF  JESUS  IN  NAZARETH 
(Lk  iv,  16-30) 
This  is  a  complete  re-working  of  Marcan  material. 
In  his  Synoptische  Tafeln  zu  den  drei  dlteren  Evangelien, 
J.  Weiss  attributes  it  to  a  special  source.  This  assign- 
ment is  correct,  in  the  sense  that  there  are  sayings  of 
Jesus  in  the  section  which  Luke  would  certainly  not 
manufacture,  and  which  he  must  therefore  have  derived 
from  some  source.  At  all  events  there  is  no  Q  material 
in  the  passage. 

THE    CALL    OF   PETER 
(Lk  V,  1-11) 

The  same  is  to  be  said  of  this  section  as  has  just  been 
said  of  iv,  16-30.  It  is  a  re-working  of  Mk  i,  16-20. 
The  latter  part  of  vs.  10  has  an  especially  genuine  sound. 
Zcoypcof  occurs  here  only  in  the  Gospels.  The  dialogue 
characteristic  of  Luke  appears  here  also.  With  the 
possible  exception  of  the  latter  half  of  vs.  10,  nothing  in 
the  section  could  be  attributed  to  any  form  of  Q. 

THE    W'OES 

(Lk  vi,  24-26) 
We  have  here  the  alternatives  of  supposing  that  Luke 
invented  these  woes,  that  he  found  them  in  some  alto- 
gether different  source  and  inserted  them  here  in  the  midst 
of  his  Q  material,  or  that  they  stood,  with  the  beatitudes, 
in  his  recension  of  Q.  Since  the  beatitudes  themselves, 
without  the  woes,  show  such  difference  as  to  preclude 
Matthew's    and    Luke's    having   drawn    them    from    an 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  195 

identical  source,  but  since  they  seem,  if  anything,  to  have 
stood  in  Q,  it  seems  natural  to  assign  these  woes  of  Luke's, 
as  we  have  assigned  the  beatitudes  peculiar  to  Matthew, 
to  the  recension  used  by  him.  The  sympathy  shown  in 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  for  the  poor  has  usually  been  referred 
to  Luke  himself.  It  may  just  as  well  have  been  a  char- 
acteristic of  one  or  more  of  his  sources. 


THE  RECEPTION  OF  JOHN's  PREACHING 
(Lk  vii.  29-30) 
These  two  verses  are  inserted  in  the  midst  of  Jesus' 
testimony  to  John  the  Baptist.  They  have  the  sound 
of  a  purely  editorial  insertion.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
they  were  found  elsewhere  by  Luke,  his  insertion  of  them 
in  this  place  is  accounted  for  by  his  desire  to  explain 
Jesus'  saying  about  John.  A  possible  hint  of  a  source 
is  found  in  the  presence  of  Suaioco.  This  verb  is  found 
in  three  other  passages  that  are  peculiar  to  Luke  and 
that  are  evidently  not  from  QLk.  If  not  from  Luke 
himself,  these  verses  are  from  some  special  source.  But 
they  are  only  what  might  be  expected  from  Luke  himself 
in  the  way  of  editorial  comment. 

THE    SINNER   IN    SIMON's   HOUSE 
(Lk  vii,  36-50) 

Tho  this  narrative  has  considerable  resemblance  to 
that  in  Mk  xiv,  3-9,  and  Mt  xxvi,  6-13,  the  different 
placing  of  the  story,  and  the  differences  in  the  story  itself, 
far  outweighing  the  resemblances,  seem  to  indicate  a 
special  source  for  it.  There  is  no  reason  to  attribute  it, 
or  any  saying  in  it,  to  Q. 


196  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

A  would-be  follower  of  JESUS 
(Lk  ix,  606-63) 
This  may  either  be  attributed  to  Luke  (or  to  some  later 
scribe)  as  an  amphfication  of  the  incident  just  related  by 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  from  Q,  or  may  be  assumed  to 
have  stood  in  Luke's  recension  of  Q.  The  two  facts, 
that  such  amplification  would  be  quite  unlike  Luke,  as 
his  literary  habits  are  revealed  to  us  in  his  treatment  of 
Mark,  and  that  the  saying  about  the  man  who  has  put 
his  hand  to  the  plow  has  an  extremely  original  and  geniune 
sound,  lead  us  to  the  latter  alternative. 

THE  RETURN  OF  THE  SEVENTY 
(Lk  X,  17-20) 

Tho  the  existence  and  mission  of  a  separate  band  of 
seventy  disciples  be  attributed  to  Luke,  he  would  cer- 
tainly never  have  manufactured  these  sayings  that  are 
connected  with  their  return.  The  sayings  may  indeed 
be  ascribed  to  a  special  source;  and  are  so  ascribed  by 
those  who  allow  nothing  to  Q  except  the  paralleled  ma- 
terial. But  these  sayings  are  extremely  primary  in  char- 
acter, especially  vss.  18  and  20;  and  they  are  similar 
to  much  Q  material.  If  in  Luke's  recension  of  Q  the 
mission  of  the  disciples  was  a  mission  of  seventy  instead 
of  twelve,  Luke  will  be  relieved  of  the  burden  of  per- 
sonal responsibility  for  the  creation  of  this  mission  of  the 
seventy;  he  has  then  merely  conflated  the  account  of  the 
mission  of  the  seventy  which  he  found  in  his  recension 
of  Q  with  the  mission  of  the  twelve  which  he  found  in 
Mark.  It  must  be  admitted  that  such  conflation  is  con- 
trary to  Luke's  habit.  The  alternatives  to  this  hypothesis 
are,  either  that  he  invented  the  mission  of  the  seventy 
himself,  or  that  he  had  before  him  three  accounts  of  the 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  197 

sending  out  of  disciples,  one  by  Mark  and  one  in  Q,  and  a 
third  in  some  unknown  source.  This  lends  probabihty 
to  the  ascription  of  these  sayings  to  QLk. 

THE  GREAT  COMMANDMENT 
(Lk  X,  25-28) 
Mark  has  a  partial  parallel  to  this  section  in  Mk 
xii,  28-31,  which  Matthew  takes  from  him  (Mt  xxii, 
34-40).  Luke's  account  is  evidently  not  from  Mark, 
however.  Luke  may  have  omitted  the  Marcan  narra- 
tive because  of  this  parallel  of  it  in  his  own  Gospel.  The 
logian  material  in  the  section  is  of  a  primary  character; 
the  implication  that  one  might  inherit  eternal  life  by 
merely  keeping  the  commandments  is  not  such  as 
to  have  been  later  invented,  and  sounds  particularly 
strange  in  Luke's  Gospel.  No  source  is  more  probable 
for  it  than  QLk. 

THE    GOOD    SAMARITAN 

(Lk  X,  29-37) 

This  parable  is  entirely  too  long  to  be  ascribed  to  any 

form  of  Q.     Its  affinities  with  others  of  the  long  parables 

peculiar  to  Luke  is  such  as  to  indicate  for  all  of  them  a 

special  source. 

MARY  AND  MARTHA 
(Lk  X,  38-42) 
Mr.  Streeter'  suggests  a  reason  why  this  incident  may 
have  been  omitted  by  Matthew  even  if  it  stood  in  Q. 
But  I  can  see  no  reason  for  assuming  it  to  have  stood  in 
the  latter  source.  It  has  great  affinity  with  much  other 
Lucan  material  which  should  not  be  assigned  to  Q,  and 
is  apparently  from  a  special  source. 

'  Oxford  Studies,  p.  192. 


198  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  parable  of  the  friend  on  a  journey 
(Lk  xi,  5-8) 
This  parable  is  brief  enough  to  have  stood  in  Q.  But 
it  does  not,  apparently,  relate  to  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  the  undoubted  Q  parables  do.  It  is  also  similar  in 
motive  to  other  Lucan  parables  assigned  to  a  special 
source. 

THE  MOTHER  OF  JESUS  PRAISED 
(Lk  xi,  27-28) 
Wellhausen  considers  this  a  variant  of  Lk  viii,  19-21, 
which  latter  is  taken  from  Mark  (iii,  31-35) .  The  parallel- 
ism is  not  very  close,  to  say  the  least.  While  a  case  may 
be  made  out  for  the  occurrence  of  this  section  in  Q,  as  is 
apparently  done  by  Mr.  Streeter,  it  seems  better  to  us 
to  assign  it  to  a  special  source  of  Luke's. 

"if    THINE    WHOLE    BODY    IS    LIGHT " 
(Lk  xi,  36) 
If  this  saying  were  genuine,   it  would  naturally  be 
assigned  to  QLk.     But  the  text  is  not  well  attested,  and 
it  is  perhaps  better  to  regard  it  as  a  gloss. 

THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  FOOLISH  RICH  MAN 
(Lk  xii,  13-21) 
Wernle  remarks  concerning  this  section  that  anyone 
with  a  sense  for  Herrenworte  will  recognize  at  once  that 
vss.  15  and  21  are  from  Luke  and  not  from  Jesus.  Vs.  21 
is  omitted  in  some  manuscripts.  The  parable  is  from  a 
special  source. 

AN    EXHORTATION    TO    WATCHFULNESS 
(Lk  xii,  35-38) 
This   might    almost    be    considered    as   a   variant   of 
Matthew's   parable   of  the   Ten   Virgins.     It   stands   in 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  199 

close  connection  here  with  Q  material.     No  more  probable 
source  can  be  suggested  for  it  than  Luke's  recension  of  Q. 

"to  whom  much  is  given" 
(Lk  xii,  47-48) 
This  section,  consisting  entirely  of  sayings,  and  oc- 
curring between  two  blocks  of  Q  material,  is  almost 
universally  ascribed  to  a  special  source,  simply  because 
it  is  not  paralleled  in  Matthew.  But  it  is  quite  homo- 
geneous with  Q.  It  is,  indeed,  unlikely  that  Matthew 
would  have  omitted  it  if  it  had  stood  in  his  recension  of 
Q;  but  no  better  source  can  be  posited  for  it  than  QLk. 
Of  fifteen  occurrences  of  depco  in  the  New  Testament, 
eight  are  found  in  Luke's  Gospel  and  in  Acts.  The  three 
occurrences  in  Acts  are  not  indicative,  as  they  are  ac- 
counted for  by  the  subject-matter;  the  five  in  the  Gospel 
are,  except  in  this  passage,  paralleled  in  Matthew  and 
Mark.  While  the  word  is  therefore  in  a  sense  a  "Lucan" 
word,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  it  was  not  in  the 
source  Luke  used. 

"l  CAME  TO  CAST  FIRE  UPON  THE  EARTH " 
(Lk  xii,  49-50) 
These  two  verses  have  a  very  primary  sound.  The 
difficulty  of  them  is  much  against  their  invention  by  Luke 
or  anyone  in  his  time.  But  if  Luke  derived  them  from 
any  written  source,  they  are  exactly  such  sayings  as  would 
have  found  a  place  in  his  recension  of  Q. 

THE    GALILEANS   SLAIN    BY   HEROD 

(Lk  xiii,  1-5) 

This  saying  was  evidently  spoken  in  Jerusalem,  but 

Luke   has   placed   it   during   the   journey   thither.     We 

may  perhaps  detect  here  the  beginnings  of  a  Jerusalem 

tradition. 


200  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  parable  of  the  fig  tree 
(Lk  xiii,  6-9) 
Like  the  preceding,  the  parable  is  given  as  part  of  the 
conversation  on  the  Samaritan  journey.  But  it  seems 
to  be  Luke's  version  of  the  story  told  by  Mark  of  the 
cursing  of  the  fig  tree;  and  this  latter  Mark  places  in 
Jerusalem.  This  may  be  taken  as  another  hint  of  the 
origin  of  this  section  in  a  Jerusalem  tradition. 

"go  tell  that  fox" 
(Lk  xiii,  31-33) 

Mr.  Streeter^  remarks  of  this  section  that  it  is  so 
"un-Lucan  in  its  rough  vigor  that  it  is  certainly  original"; 
in  other  words,  that  it  certainly  stood  in  Luke's  source. 
This  source  Mr.  Streeter  maintains  is  Q,  not  only  for  this 
brief  section,  but  for  the  solid  block  of  Lk  ix,  51 — xiii,  59 
(with  the  possible  exception  of  the  two  parables  of  the 
Good  Samaritan,  the  Rich  Fool,  and  perhaps  the  story 
of  Martha).  The  passage,  xiii,  1-17,  he  suggests  may  have 
been  interpolated  into  Q  before  Q  came  to  Luke. 

The  primary  character  of  the  section  now  under 
consideration  cannot  be  doubted.  The  fact  that  Luke 
has  apparently  left  his  Q  material  by  itself,  instead  of 
mingling  it  with  his  Marcan  and  other  matter,  would 
argue  for  Mr.  Streeter's  position.  Yet  Luke  has  not 
altogether  followed  this  general  rule  of  his;  and  he  has 
made  some  very  notable  transpositions  of  Marcan  ma- 
terial. This  saying,  also,  is  not  quite  like  most  of  the 
sayings  that  are  by  common  agreement  to  be  ascribed 
to  Q.  It  is  neither  a  general  rule  of  conduct,  like  the 
sayings  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  nor  has  it  to  do  with 
the  kingdom  of  God,  like  the  brief  parables  of  Q.     If 

1  Oxford  Studies,  p.  193. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  201 

Luke  inserted  it  from  another  source,  his  reason  for 
inserting  it  in  just  this  place  may  have  been  the  fact  of 
its  closing  with  the  word  ''Jerusalem."  Yet  the  lament 
over  Jerusalem  which  immediately  follows  is  evidently 
wrongly  placed  by  Luke,  in  the  midst  of  his  Perean 
journey.  We  are  inclined  to  assign  these  verses,  tho 
with  some  uncertainty,  to  a  special  source.  The  words 
were  apparently  spoken  neither  on  the  Perean  journey 
(assuming  such  a  journey  to  have  taken  place)  nor  at 
its  close  in  Jerusalem,  but  in  Galilee. 

THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DROPSICAL  MAN 
(Lk  xiv,  1-6) 
The  only  saying  in  this  section  is  that  paralleled  in 
Lk  xiii,  15-16,  and  duplicated  in  Mt  xii,  11.  The  inci- 
dent is  somewhat  similar  to  that  recorded  in  Mk  iii,  1-6; 
and  it  is  noticeable  that  Matthew,  in  taking  over  that 
incident  from  Mark,  inserts  in  the  midst  of  it  this  saying 
of  Jesus  about  the  ox  or  ass  falling  into  the  pit  on  the 
Sabbath.  If  the  saying  occurred  in  Q,  Matthew  has 
thus  taken  it  out  of  its  original  context  and  made  it  a 
part  of  a  Marcan  story;  but  he  would  hardly  have  done 
this  if  it  already,  in  his  copy  of  Q,  constituted  part  of 
another  and  equally  good  story.  In  view  of  the  general 
character  of  Q  as  a  collection  of  "sayings,"  with  as  little 
mixture  of  incident  as  possible,  it  seems  better  to  say  that 
this  saying  about  the  ox  or  ass  falling  into  the  pit  occurred 
once  in  Q,  unconnected,  and  that  Luke  found  it  again  in 
the  story  before  us,  in  some  other  source. 

ABOUT  TAKING  THE  LESS  HONORABLE  SEATS  AT  TABLE 

(Lk  xiv,  7-11) 
This  saying  may  have  been  manufactured  upon  the 
basis  of  Mk  xii,  39  ("they  love  the  chief  seats  at  feasts," 


202  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

etc).  Vs.  11  is  the  oft-repeated  formula  discussed  on 
p.  182.  While  this  and  the  following  section  are  not 
impossible  for  QLk,  it  seems  better  to  assign  them  both 
to  one  of  Luke's  special  sources. 

WHOM    TO    INVITE    TO    A    FEAST 
(Lk  xiv,  12-14) 

This  saying  of  Jesus  seems  out  of  place  at  a  dinner  to 
which  he  had  been  invited.  The  saying  itself  is  not  unlike 
Q.  Observing  that  this  saying  and  the  two  just  pre- 
ceding are  placed  by  Luke  at  feasts  given  for  Jesus,  but 
that  they  contain  sayings  of  Jesus  either  placed  elsewhere 
by  Matthew  or  not  given  by  him  at  all,  Mr.  Streeter  is 
inclined  to  assign  the  setting  of  these  sayings  in  each 
case  to  Luke,  and  the  sayings  to  Q.  This  would  seem  more 
justifiable  if  it  were  not  plain  that  Luke  had,  besides  his 
recension  of  Q  and  Mark,  at  least  two  or  three  other 
sources.  One  cannot  be  categorical  on  such  a  matter, 
and  it  is  possible  that  this  section  with  the  two  preceding 
should  be  assigned  to  QLk. 

THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  DINNER  AND  THE  INVITED  GUESTS 
(Lk  xiv,  15-24) 
This  parable  is  generally  regarded  as  parallel  to  Mt 
xxii,  1-10,  and  the  two  are  assigned  to  Q.  But  while 
the  two  evangelists  are  evidently  relating  the  same  parable, 
there  is  so  little  verbal  resemblance  as  to  give  no  proof  of 
a  common  literary  source.  Upon  the  assumption  of  such 
a  source,  the  violence  done  to  it  by  Matthew  or  Luke  or 
both  in  its  transcription  is  quite  beyond  belief.  If  the 
parable  in  either  Gospel  is  assigned  to  Q,  the  one  in  the 
other  should  be  otherwise  assigned.  It  seems  better  to 
ascribe  both  of  them  to  special  sources.     The  two  versions 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  203 

are  about  as  unlike  as  they  could  well  be,  and  still  be 
versions  of  the  same  parable. 

CONDITIONS  OF  DISCIPLESHIP 
(Lk  xiv,  28-35) 
Here  are  four  detached  sayings,  the  first  two  similar 
in  meaning.  Vs.  28  sounds  like  a  genuine  logion,  with 
vss.  29  and  30  added  as  an  explanatory  comment.  The 
same  may  be  said,  respectively,  of  vss.  31  and  32.  Vs.  33, 
tho  beginning  with  ourcos,  does  not  seem  to  fit  in  this 
place.  Vs.  34a  is  from  Mark  (ix,  50)  or  influenced  by  it. 
Considering  the  connections,  it  is  probably  best  to  assign 
the  passage  to  QLk,  with  improvements  by  Luke. 

THE  LOST  SHEEP 
(Lk  XV,  1-7) 
Mr.  Streeter  suggests  that  Luke  may  have  elaborated 
this  parable  out  of  the  saying  in  Mt  xviii,  12-13.  Johan- 
nes Weiss,  as  indicated  in  his  Synoptische  Tafeln  zu  den 
drei  dlteren  Evangelien,  seems  also  to  consider  that  while 
the  parable  as  a  whole  is  drawn  from  one  of  Luke's  peculiar 
sources,  there  is  a  literary  connection  between  vss.  4-7 
and  Matthew's  saying.  Considering  the  connection  of  the 
parable  with  the  two  that  immediately  follow,  it  seems 
better  to  assign  all  three  to  a  common  Lucan  source. 

THE    LOST   COIN   AND    THE    PRODIGAL    SON 
(Lk  XV,  8-32) 
These  parables  may  be  assigned  without  comment  to 
one  of  Luke's  special  sources. 

THE    UNJUST   STEWARD 
(Lk  xvi,  1-12) 
The   composite   character   of   this   parable   has   been 
asserted  by  various  writers.     Schmieden  suggests  that 

■  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  col.  1864. 


204  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

vss.  10-12  have  been  added  by  a  later  hand.  If  the 
parable  stops  with  vs.  9,  the  meaning  of  it  apparently  is 
that  one  should  give  mammon  away;  the  two  following 
verses  seem  merely  to  inculcate  honesty  in  business  mat- 
ters. Indeed,  perhaps  the  parable  should  be  considered 
as  ending  with  vs.  7,  and  vs.  8  as  probably  an  editorial 
comment  upon  it.  In  the  latter  case,  the  6  Kvptos 
of  vs.  8  refers  to  Jesus.  This  supposition  requires  the 
further  one  that  the  writer  of  vs.  9  has  forgotten  that 
vs.  8  is  indirect  discourse  attributed  to  Jesus.  Vs.  13 
is  from  Q  and  is  duplicated  in  Mt  vi,  24.  But  there  is 
no  new  Q  material  here. 


A    CRITICISM    OF   THE    PHARISEES 
(Lk  xvi,  14-15) 

The  verses  which  immediately  follow  these  are  from 
Q.  Streeter^  inclines  to  assign  vss.  14-15  to  the  same 
source.  But  if  vss.  16-18  be  omitted  here  and  placed  in 
some  other  connection,  vss.  14-15  constitute  an  excellent 
introduction  to  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus 
which  follows  in  vss.  19-31.  In  favor  of  Mr.  Streeter's 
assignment  is  the  fact  that  Q  was  apparently  a  collection 
of  sayings  neither  topically  nor  otherwise  arranged,  and 
that  the  four  sayings  in  vss.  15-18  are  thus  detached, 
Matthew  having  taken  the  three  in  vss.  16-18  and 
"worked  them  into  appropriate  contexts."  Of  vss.  14 
and  15  about  all  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  latter  sounds 
like  Q.  Considering  Matthew's  fondness  for  everything 
that  reflects  upon  the  Pharisees,  it  seems  likely  that  if 
vs.  15  stood  in  any  form  of  Q  it  was  in  Luke's  recension 
only. 

1  Oxford  Studies,  p.  201. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  205 

THE  RICH  MAN  AND  LAZARUS 
(Lk  xvi,  19-31) 
This  parable  seems  to  show  something  of  the  same 
composite  character  as  is  found  in  that  of  the  Unjust 
Steward,  the  first  part  having  to  do  with  rich  and  poor 
and  the  second  part  with  beheving  and  unbelieving. 
There  is  no  Q  material  in  it. 

"unprofitable    servants"    and    the    HEALING    OF    THE 

TEN   LEPERS 

(Lk  xvii,  7-10;  xvii,  11-19) 

The  former  of  these  two  sections  might  conceivably 

have  stood  in  Luke's  recension  of  Q;  the  latter  not  in  any 

recension.     It  is  better  to  assign  them  both  to  a  special 

source. 

about   the    coming    OF   THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD 
(Lk  xvii,  20-21) 

This  little  section  certainly  has  a  Q  sound.  If  it  stood 
in  Matthew's  recension,  reasons  may  easily  be  given  for 
his  omission  of  it;  he  would  not  have  understood  the 
non-apocalyptic  statement,  "the  kingdom  of  God  is 
within  [or  among]  you."  But  it  cannot  be  proved,  at 
least,  that  the  section  stood  in  Matthew's  Q;  therefore 
if  it  is  assigned  to  Q  at  all  it  would  better  be  assigned 
merely  to  Luke's  recension. 

Later  than  this  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  there  is  nothing 
that  needs  to  be  examined  for  possible  Q  material.  His 
single  tradition  from  here  on  includes  the  parables  of  the 
Unjust  Judge,  and  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  in  the 
Temple,  the  story  of  Zacchaeus,  the  lament  over  Jerusalem, 
the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  a  few  sections 
in  the  story  of  the  trial,  the  death,  and  the  resurrection 
appearances  of  Jesus.     Of  these  only  one,  the  lament 


206  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

over  Jerusalem,  bears  any  resemblance  to  the  Q  material 
in  general.  Professor  Burkitt  suggests,  indeed,  that  xxii, 
15-16,  24-32,  and  35-38,  may  be  remnants  of  Q's  account 
of  the  passion.  We  have  seen  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
there  was  such  an  account  in  Q.  If  there  was,  there 
are  no  signs  by  which  it  can  be  identified  in  this  portion 
of  Luke's  narrative.  It  is  better  to  assign  all  this  material 
to  a  special  source.  The  fact  that  Luke  has  no  resurrec- 
tion appearances  in  Galilee  may  perhaps  be  taken  as 
confirmation  of  our  hypothesis  of  a  Jerusalem  source  in 
his  hands. 

MATTER  PECULIAR  TO  MATTHEW  OR  TO  LUKE 

In  the  determination  of  Q  material  in  the  single  tradi- 
tions of  Matthew  and  Luke  on  pp.  166-206,  the  writer 
has  ventured  occasionally  to  suggest  a  possible  source 
for  such  material  as  is  not  assigned  to  any  form  of  Q. 

In  addition  to  the  sayings-material  considered  on  pp. 
166-92,  Matthew  has  in  his  single  tradition  the  following 
narratives:  the  birth  and  infancy  sections,  chaps,  i,  ii; 
the  temple  tax,  xvii,  24-27;  the  children  in  the  temple, 
xxi,  14-16;  the  death  of  Judas,  xxvii,  3-10;  the  wife  of 
Pilate,  and  Pilate  and  the  crowd,  xxvii,  19,  24-25;  miracles 
at  the  death  of  Jesus,  xxvii,  51-53;  the  watch  at  the 
grave,  xxvii,  62-66;  xxviii,  11-15;  the  angel  rolling  away 
the  stone,  xxviii,  2-3;  the  appearances  of  Jesus  to  the 
women,  xxviii,  9-10;  to  the  disciples,  xxviii,  16-20. 

In  addition  to  the  sayings  and  parables  of  the  single 
tradition  of  Luke,  considered  on  pp.  193-206,  that  tradi- 
tion contains  the  following  narratives :  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist,  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus,  with  the 
ancestry,  chaps,  i,  ii,  iii,  1-38;  the  miraculous  draft  of 
fishes,  V,  4-9;   the  raising  of  the  widow's  son,  vii,  11-17; 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  207 

the  ministering  women,  viii,  1-3 ;  an  event  in  a  Samaritan 
village,  ix,  51-56;  the  healing  of  the  woman,  xiii,  10-17;^ 
the  ten  lepers,  xvii,  11-19;  Zacchaeus,  xix,  2-10;  the 
trial  before  Herod,  xxiii,  6-12;  the  thief  on  the  cross, 
xxiii,  39-43;  the  walk  to  Emmaus,  xxiv,  13-35;  the 
appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus,  xxiv,  36-53. 

Matthew's  pecuhar  material  is  scattered  thru  his  entire 
Gospel.  He  begins  and  ends  with  it.  After  he  reaches 
the  Passion,  his  peculiar  material  becomes  unusually 
abundant.  In  the  twenty-three  chapters  between  the 
infancy  and  the  passion,  he  has  only  seventeen  insertions 
of  peculiar  material.  In  the  three  chapters  that  follow, 
he  has  nine.  These  latter  are  of  a  different  sort.  In 
the  earlier  part  of  his  single  tradition,  sayings  and  par- 
ables predominate;  here,  except  for  the  saying  about  the 
legion  of  angels,  the  peculiar  material  is  all  narrative. 

Luke  has  likewise  distributed  his  peculiar  material 
thruout  his  gospel,  and  also  begins  and  ends  with  it.  But 
after  his  stories  of  the  birth  and  childhood,  he  has,  up  to 
his  chap,  ix,  five  insertions  of  peculiar  matter.  Four  of 
these  are  incidents,  one  is  a  speech  of  John  the  Baptist. 
With  ix,  51,  begins  his  great  interpolation.  In  the  less 
than  ten  chapters  covered  by  this  he  has  grouped  twenty- 
five  sections  of  his  peculiar  material.  This  matter  has 
a  prevailing  character  of  its  own.  There  are  four  narra- 
tives in  it,  three  of  them  being  heahngs.  The  other 
twenty-one  sections  consist  of  sayings  and  parables.  If 
we  consider  the  relative  length  of  the  sayings,  the  narra- 
tives, and  parables  of  this  section,  we  shall  see  that  the 
whole  is  practically  a  parable  section.  With  the  coming 
of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  this  material  stops.     From  here 

1  The  healing  of  a  dropsical  man  (Lk  xiv,  1-6),  tho  a  narrative  section, 
has  been  considered  on  p.  201,  on  account  of  the  sayings  in  it. 


208  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

on  Luke  has  two  brief  sayings  and  one  longer  one,  five 
sections  of  narrative,  and  no  parable,  in  his  single  tradition. 

Whether  the  source  of  Matthew's  peculiar  material 
was  one  or  more  than  one,  it  suggests  itself  at  once  that 
the  birth  and  infancy  stories  may  have  come  from  a  place 
by  themselves.  They  have,  to  a  considerable  extent,  a 
vocabulary  of  their  own.  Constituting  about  one  twenty- 
second  of  the  total  matter  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  they 
contain  almost  one-tenth  of  the  occurrences  of  the  char- 
acteristic words  of  that  Gospel.^  Even  if  the  constantly 
recurring  yevvaic  of  the  genealogy  be  removed,  the  pe- 
culiar words  occur  with  much  more  frequency  in  this 
birth  and  infancy  section  than  in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 
The  force  of  this  fact,  however,  is  considerably  weakened 
by  the  peculiar  subject-matter  of  these  chapters. 

More  decisive  upon  this  matter  is  the  general  character 
of  the  birth  and  infancy  sections,  which  is  sharply  dis- 
tinguished from  that  of  the  body  of  the  Gospel.  This  is 
not  due  to  the  presence  of  the  marvelous  in  these  early 
chapters,  since  that  is  found  to  some  degree  throughout, 
but  to  the  presence  of  what  may  be  more  distinctly  called 
the  legendary  element.  In  this  characteristic  it  is  like 
some  of  the  material  at  the  end  of  Matthew's  Gospel. 
Let  one  compare  the  general  character  of  the  stories  of 
the  star  and  the  magi,  the  slaughter  of  the  innocents,  and 
the  flight  into  Egypt  with  the  story  of  the  opening  of  the 
graves  and  the  awakening  of  the  departed  dead,  and  the 
angel  rolling  away  the  stone  from  the  grave,  and  the 
question  will  suggest  itself,  whether  Matthew  may  not 
have  obtained  all  these  stories  from  one  source. 

This  suggestion  might  appear  to  be  seconded  by  the 
fact  that  this  material,  which  has  such  a  striking  family 

'  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  p.  9. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  209 

resemblance,  is  not  scattered  thru  the  body  of  Matthew's 
work,  but  occurs,  part  of  it  before  he  has  reached  his 
junction  with  Mark  and  Luke,  and  the  rest  of  it  after  he 
has  parted  from  them.  He  not  only  begins  and  ends 
alone,  but  he  begins  and  ends  with  material  of  a  remark- 
ably similar  character.  This  is  not  enough,  of  course, 
to  prove  the  unity  of  Matthew's  source  for  the  first  and 
last  parts  of  his  single  tradition;  but  it  is  enough  to 
suggest  it. 

As  to  the  source  of  the  rest  of  Matthew's  peculiar 
material,  we  cannot  get  beyond  guesswork.  Some  of  it 
has  an  extremely  genuine  sound ;  for  example,  the  sayings 
appended  to  the  Sabbath  discussion,  ''The  priests  break 
the  sabbath  in  the  temple  and  are  blameless,"  etc.  (xii, 
5-6);  the  saying  about  the  angels  of  the  little  ones 
(xviii,  10);  the  parable  of  the  Fish-Net,  preserving  so 
well  the  eschatological  features  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus 
(xiii,  47-50);  the  parable  of  the  Two  Sons  (xxi,  28-31). 
The  incident  of  the  temple  tax  (xvii,  24-27)  seems  to  go 
back  for  its  origin  to  a  time  when  the  temple  was  still 
in  existence,  and,  when  it  is  relieved  of  the  item  of  the 
coin  in  the  fish's  mouth  (which  may  easily  be  a  later  addi- 
tion to  the  story),  seems  to  bear  traces  of  undoubted 
genuineness. 

The  parable  of  the  Laborers  who  received  every  man 
a  penny  (Mt  xx,  1-16)  seems  likewise  to  indicate  a  time 
considerably  later  than  that  of  Jesus;  a  time,  namely, 
when  those  who  had  long  waited  for  the  parousia  were 
asking  whether  those  who  had  come  in  at  the  eleventh 
hour  were  to  receive  the  rewards  of  the  coming  kingdom 
exactly  as  those  who  had  ''borne  the  burden  and  the  heat 
of  the  day."  That  it  was  in  such  a  time  as  this  that 
Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  may  suggest  the  hypothesis 


210  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

that  he  has  here  worked  over  some  genuine  saying  of 
Jesus,  or  received  such  a  saying  as  it  had  been  worked 
over  by  the  waiting  community,  to  suit  the  need  of  the 
times. 

In  much  the  same  manner  the  story  of  the  Wise  and 
FooHsh  Virgins  (xxv,  1-13)  seems  to  come  from  a  period 
when  the  church  was  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  bride 
of  Christ,  or  when  Christ  was  awaited  as  the  coming 
bridegroom  of  the  church;  this  is  not  necessarily  later 
than  the  times  of  Paul's  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  and  so 
may  be  much  earlier  than  Matthew,  but  is  certainly  later 
than  the  time  of  Jesus. 

The  saying  about  eunuchs  who  have  made  themselves 
such  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  has  a  harsh  sound  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus;  and  we  wonder  whether  the  circum- 
stances of  the  expectation  of  the  kingdom  warranted  such 
a  statement  at  the  time  Jesus  is  said  to  have  made  it. 
We  cannot  but  notice  also,  as  Wernle  has  remarked,  that 
the  saying  seems  to  be  displaced  in  Matthew,  coming  in 
with  extreme  inappropriateness  between  Jesus'  insistence 
upon  the  sacredness  of  marriage  and  his  blessing  of  the 
children.  It  may  bespeak  the  period  of  developing 
asceticism  within  the  church.  If  it  is  not  to  be  assigned 
to  Jesus  we  cannot  fix  very  closely  the  date  of  its  origin. 

On  the  whole,  we  must  probably  say  that  some  parts 
of  Matthew's  tradition,  outside  of  his  infancy  section  and 
the  stories  of  the  wonders  at  the  crucifixion,  show  indica- 
tions of  antiquity  and  genuineness,  while  others  arouse 
our  suspicions  as  to  their  coming  from  Jesus,  or  even  from 
Matthew. 

MATTER    PECULIAR   TO    LUKE 

As  to  whether  the  source  of  Luke's  single  tradition  was 
one  or  many  the  statement  in  his  prologue  predisposes 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  211 

us  toward  the  latter  supposition.  The  difference  between 
the  infancy  sections  and  the  rest  of  Luke's  pecuhar  mate- 
rial, as  in  the  case  of  Matthew,  is  marked.  Hawkins 
reckons  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  words  as  characteristic 
of  Luke.  Of  these,  seventy-seven,  or  more  than  half, 
occur  once  or  more  in  the  first  two  chapters,  while  seventy- 
four  of  them  are  absent  from  these  chapters.  These 
first  two  chapters  contain  about  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
two  verses,  about  one-ninth  of  the  whole  Gospel;  yet 
one-half  of  the  occurrences  of  Luke's  peculiar  words  are 
found  here. 

A  strong  Hebraic  character  is  observable  in  Luke's 
infancy  sections,  quite  absent  from  his  other  pecuhar 
material.  In  the  twenty-one  verses  in  i,  5-25,  /cat  is 
used  many  times  where  Luke's  habit  elsewhere  would 
lead  us  to  expect  the  substitution  of  8k.  There  are  also 
many  Hebraic  phrases,  such  as  iropevo/jievoL  iv  Trdcrais 
rats  ePToXals,  TrpolSe^rjKOTes  ev  rats  rifxepats,  fiiyas  ivdoinov 
Kvpiov,  and  the  construction  eyepero,  thrice  used,  as  the 
formula  introducing  a  paragraph.  Luke's  own  hand 
may  be  seen  in  the  introduction  of  8e  three  times. 
One  of  these  is  in  connection  with  elweu,  which  is  prob- 
ably Luke's  substitute  for  the  historic  present.  The 
retention  of  so  many  Hebraistic  and  non-Lucan  features 
probably  justifies  JiiUcher's  suggestion  of  a  special 
(Hebraistic,  Aramaic)  written  source  for  these  infancy 
sections.  A  written  and  not  an  oral  source  is  also  indi- 
cated in  Luke's  table  of  ancestors,^  especially  in  its  awk- 
ward placing  after  the  baptism.  It  is  quite  impossible 
that  Luke  is  here  drawing  upon  the  same  source  as  in  his 


1  Unless  this  should  be  regarded  as  a  gloss,  which  would  not  so  well 
account  for  its  awkward  position.  See  Sanders,  Journal  of  Biblical  Litera- 
ture, October,  1913. 


212  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

great  interpolation.  Even  more  decisive  in  this  direction 
than  the  vocabulary  is  the  general  character  of  the 
material. 

Sanday  is  "especially  glad  to  see  the  stress  that  is  laid 
[in  certain  other  essays  in  the  same  volume]  on  the  homo- 
geneity of  the  peculiar  matter  of  Luke."^  He  does  not 
expressly  say  that  he  includes  here  the  infancy  sections, 
or  whether  he  refers  merely  to  the  great  interpolation; 
in  the  absence  of  such  a  statement,  it  may  be  fair  to 
assume  the  former.  He  adds,  "I  fully  believe,  myself,  in 
its  Jewish-Christian  and  Palestinian  origin."  But  when 
he  adds  further,  "I  can  altogether  go  along  with  the  view 
that  St.  Luke  probably  collected  this  material  during  his 
two  years'  stay  at  Caesarea  (Acts  xxiv  compared  with  xxi 
and  xxvii,  1);  I  could  even  quite  believe  with  Harnack, 
Mr.  Streeter,  and  Dr.  Bartlet  that  his  chief  informants 
were  Philip  the  evangelist  and  his  four  daughters,"  he 
is  open  to  the  suspicion  of  being  too  much  influenced  by 
a  desire  to  trace  the  tradition  back  to  a  definite  and 
authentic  source,  even  where  the  data  do  not  warrant  it. 
There  is  certainly  no  justification  for  referring  the  infancy 
stories  to  Philip  and  his  four  daughters  (and  perhaps,  as 
suggested  above.  Dr.  Sanday  does  not  mean  to  do  this). 

Dr.  Sanday  further  agrees  with  Dr.  Bartlet  "that  the 
information  derived  in  this  way  probably  lay  before  St. 
Luke  in  writing.  The  interval  between  his  stay  in 
Caesarea  and  the  publication  of  his  Gospel  could  hardly 
have  been  less  than  some  fifteen  years  and  I  doubt  if  the 
freshness,  precision,  and  individual  touches  which  char- 
acterize St.  Luke  could  well  have  been  preserved  other- 
wise than  by  writing."  If  Dr.  Sanday  means  that  the 
writing  was  done  by  Luke  during  his  stay  in  Caesarea, 

>  Oxford  Studies,  Introductory  Essay,  pp.  xx-xxl. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  213 

from  oral  tradition  given  him  by  Philip  and  his  daughters, 
we  are  left  with  the  assumption  that  Luke  kept  this 
written  material  of  his  own  for  fifteen  years  (probably 
a  good  deal  longer)  before  he  incorporated  it  in  his  Gospel. 
This  would  agree  well  with  the  theory  that  Luke,  as  the 
traveling  companion  of  Paul,  kept  a  diary  of  events, 
which  he  preserved  for  a  still  longer  period,  until  he 
finally  incorporated  it  in  his  Book  of  Acts.  Both  these 
assumptions  are  strange  upon  the  face  of  them;  and  for 
those  who  do  not  accept  the  same  authorship  for  the  "we 
sections"  and  the  rest  of  Acts  (as  the  present  writer  does 
not),  and  who  also  think  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  not 
written  till  considerably  more  than  fifteen  years  from  the 
time  of  Luke's  stay  in  Caesarea,  and  who  do  not  identify 
the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  with  the  traveling  com- 
panion of  Paul,  Dr.  Sanday's  statement  will  not  appear 
conclusive. 

Outside  of  Luke's  infancy  sections  (and  the  passion 
sections  which  will  be  considered  in  a  succeeding  para- 
graph) there  is  an  apparent  homogeneity  in  much  of 
Luke's  single  tradition.  Luke  and  Matthew  start  out  in 
their  attempt  to  tell  the  gospel  story,  each  on  his  own 
independent  line.  They  come  together  at  the  point  where 
Mark  has  begun  his  story.  Except  for  a  few  insertions 
and  transpositions  they  stay  together  and  with  Mark  up 
to  Lk  ix,  5L  Here  Luke  inserts  something  more  than 
nine  chapters  before  he  gets  back  again  to  Matthew 
and  Mark. 

In  these  more  than  nine  chapters  there  are  some  sec- 
tions which  Matthew  has  in  the  earlier  part  of  his  Gospel, 
and  little  which  Mark  has;^  but  in  these  nine  chapters 
Luke  inserts  most  of  the  material  peculiar  to  himself,  and 

>  See  pp.  8-9,  16-18. 


214  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  nine  chapters  is  made  up 
exclusively  of  such  material.  From  the  end  of  Luke's 
infancy  section  to  his  great  interpolation  there  are  about 
one  hundred  and  fourteen  verses  of  exclusively  Lucan 
material,  but  in  this  interpolation  there  are  about  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy  verses.  The  suggestion  of  these  facts, 
to  the  effect  that  Luke  is  here  employing  a  source  distinct 
from  that  which  he  has  used  in  his  infancy  section,  and  that 
he  is  for  the  most  part  employing  one  source  and  not 
several,  may  be  further  favored  by  the  fact  that  when  he 
comes  back  to  the  story  told  in  Mark  (and  Matthew)  he 
takes  that  up,  not  where  he  left  it,  at  Mk  vi,  41,  but  at 
viii,  27;  as  if  he  had  found  it  inconvenient  to  make  his 
peculiar  source  here  work  in  with  the  common  tradition.^ 

DID  Luke's  great  interpolation  originally  exist 

AS   A    SEPARATE    DOCUMENTARY    SOURCE  ? 

The  material  of  Luke's  "great  interpolation,"  after 
the  comparatively  small  amount  of  matter  common  to 
Luke  and  Matthew  is  subtracted  from  it,  has  a  decided 
homogeneity  of  its  own.  It  consists  of  nine  sayings,  one 
incident  (the  occurrence  in  the  Samaritan  village)  which 
might  with  almost  equal  propriety  be  reckoned  as  a  saying, 
three  healings,  all  of  which  have  the  appearance  of  being 
introduced,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  cure,  but  of  the 
appended  saying,  and  thirteen  parables. 

These  thirteen  parables  have  not  only  a  striking  simi- 
larity among  themselves,  but  an  equally  striking  c^is- 
similarity  to  those  parables  which  Luke  has  in  common 
with  one  or  both  of  the  other  evangelists.  Matthew's 
parables  are  usually  brief  sayings,   beginning  with  the 

•  Holtzraann's  suggestion  that  Luke  omitted  the  Mark  section  because 
it  ends  with  the  second  feeding  of  the  multitude — -implying  tlie  same  sort 
of  omission  by  mistake  as  is  often  made  wlien  two  lines  end  with  the  same 
word — seems  strangely  insufficient. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  215 

phrase,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  Hke,"  etc.  The 
parables  pecuHar  to  Luke  (there  are  fourteen  in  all  and 
thirteen  of  them  occur  in  this  section)  are  stories  rather 
than  parables  in  the  strict  sense.  Some  of  them  are  intro- 
duced by  the  brief  formula,  "And  he  said  unto  them," 
or  "And  he  said  to  his  disciples,"  etc.  Others  are  given 
a  more  definite  setting,  like  the  story  of  the  Good  Samari- 
tan, which  is  introduced  as  an  answer  to  the  question 
"Who  is  my  neighbor?"  However  introduced,  they 
usually  contain  a  more  or  less  elaborated  conclusion,  easily 
distinguished  from  the  parable  proper.  Thus  in  the  story 
of  the  Good  Samaritan,  Jesus  asks  the  lawyer  which  of  the 
three  men  he  considers  to  have  been  neighbor  to  him  who 
fell  among  the  thieves.  The  lawyer  makes  his  reply,  and 
upon  the  basis  of  it  Jesus  dismisses  him  with  a  word  of 
pointed  advice.  In  the  same  manner  the  story  of  the 
Rich  Fool  is  introduced  as  a  rebuke  to  the  man  who  asks 
Jesus  to  help  him  secure  his  portion  of  an  estate,  and 
closes  with  the  reflection  that  whoever  has  the  riches  of 
this  world  but  is  not  "rich  toward  God"  is  like  this  man. 
So  the  stories  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  the  Lost  Coin  are 
introduced  with  the  statement  that  the  Pharisees  objected 
to  Jesus'  eating  with  "sinners,"  and  close  with  the  state- 
ment, "Likewise  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels 
of  God,"  1  etc. 

At  least  one  or  two  of  these  parables  seem  to  be  pro- 
vided with  more  than  one  conclusion.  The  story  of  the 
Unjust  Judge  (xviii,  1-8)  is  introduced  in  vs.  1  as  being 
spoken  concerning  the  necessity  of  continued  prayer. 
The  story  or  parable  itself  then  follows  in  vss.  2-5.  Vss. 
6-8a  give  the  conclusion  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  beginning 

'  Why  does  Luke  have  two  laments  over  Jerusalem,  as  well  as  two 
missions  of  the  disciples,  especially  considering  his  apparent  avoidance 
of  duplicates  ? 


216  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

with  the  words,  "And  the  Lord  said."  Then  Luke  him- 
self, in  vs.  86,  adds,  "But,  when  the  Son  of  man  cometh 
will  he  find  the  faith  in  the  earth  ?"^  The  story  of  the 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  is  introduced  as  a  rebuke  to  the 
Pharisees  (Lk  xvi,  14-15),  who  loved  riches  and  thot  well 
of  themselves.  The  parable  as  thus  introduced  and  as 
answering  to  this  purpose  appropriately  closes  at  vs.  25, 
where  Abraham  reminds  the  rich  man  that  he  had  his 
good  things  and  Lazarus  his  poverty  upon  the  earth,  but 
now  their  situations  are  reversed.^  What  follows  in  vss. 
27-31,  tho  here  given  as  a  continuation  of  the  same  story, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  contrast  between  rich  and 
poor,  or  with  heartlessness  and  pity,  but  only  with  belief 
and  unbelief. 

It  may  be  observed  also  that  the  insertion  of  here  and 
there  a  few  verses  that  are  elsewhere  paralleled  in  Matthew 
interrupts  the  otherwise  good  connection  of  Luke's  peculiar 
account.  Thus  the  story  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus 
is  introduced,  as  just  remarked,  as  a  rebuke  to  the  Phari- 
sees, who  loved  money  and  "justified  themselves  in  the 
sight  of  men."  If  it  were  allowed  to  follow  immediatelj^ 
upon  this,  the  setting  would  be  appropriate.  But  between 
this  introduction,  which  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  the 
story  itself,  also  peculiar  to  him,  there  are  inserted  three 
verses  (xvi,  16-18)  in  regard  to  law  and  divorce,  which 
quite  break  the  connection.  These  interrupting  verses, 
however,  are  not  peculiar  to  Luke,  but  are  found  in 
Matthew  also. 

1  This  last,  quite  inappropriate  alilce  in  tlie  moutli  of  Jesus  and  as  a 
part  of  his  parable,  becomes,  in  the  mouth  of  Luke,  a  pathetic  commentary 
upon  the  difficulty  of  preserving  the  Christian  faith  while  waiting  for  the 
long-delayed  parousia. 

2  The  soliloquy  in  the  parables  of  Jesus  is  introduced  by  Luke  alone. 
The  dialogue,  tho  more  frequent  in  Luke  than  in  Matthew,  is  not  restricted 
to  him. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  217 

When  all  these  facts  are  taken  into  account  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  hypothesis  has  risen  that  the  great 
interpolation,  exclusive  of  the  Q  material  contained  in  it; 
came  from  a  special  source. 

But  the  unity  of  this  source  is  much  harder  to  demon- 
strate than  is  the  unity  of  Q.  A  considerable  amount 
of  the  material,  aside  from  the  Q  material,  in  these  sec- 
tions is  more  or  less  closely  duplicated  by  Matthew,  and 
the  Perean  source  or  its  equivalent  in  parts  must  there- 
fore have  been  used  by  him  also.  Matthew's  demon- 
strated faithfulness  to  his  sources  raises  serious  doubt  as 
to  whether  he  could  have  known  this  Perean  source  and 
have  omitted  so  much  of  it.  The  assumption  that  he 
did  so,  and  the  assignment  of  the  double  tradition  thru- 
out  this  portion  of  Luke,  would  require  also  an  entire 
rearrangement  of  Q.  Burton  accepts  this  requirement, 
and,  instead  of  Q,  goes  back  to  the  Logia  as  a  special 
source  of  Matthew.  The  fact  that  some  of  this  material 
in  the  so-called  Perean  section  of  Luke  may  easily  be 
assigned  to  his  own  invention,  and  that  in  the  larger  part 
of  it  where  he  is  not  duplicated  by  Matthew  his  own  hand 
can  be  clearly  seen  in  additions  and  rearrangements,  would 
seem  to  tell  against  the  unity  of  the  Perean  source,  or 
against  the  assumption  of  any  Perean  source  properly 
so  called,  and  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  On  the 
whole  the  hypothesis  of  a  Perean  source  does  not  seem 
to  the  writer  to  have  been  substantiated. 

OTHER    possible    SOURCES    FOR   MATERIAL    PECULIAR 
TO    LUKE 

Suggestion  has  been'.made  in  connection  with  a  few  of 
the  passages  considered  on  pp.  193-206  as  to  a  possible 
Jerusalem  source.  Nothing  can  perhaps  be  said  in  sup- 
port of  such  a  hypothesis,  except  what  is  suggested  in  the 


218  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

analysis  on  those  pages  and  lies  upon  the  surface  of  the 
passages.  Another  possible  clew  to  the  determination  of 
one  of  Luke's  sources  lies  in  the  material  that  has  to  do 
particularly  with  women.  Compare  the  raising  of  the 
widow's  son  and  the  speech  of  Jesus  referring  to  the  Old 
Testament  widow;  the  ministering  women,  Mary  and 
Martha,  and  the  speech  of  the  woman  about  the  mother 
of  Jesus.  The  writer  does  not  consider  this  (or  the  pre- 
ceding) to  be  anything  more  than  a  suggestion. 

CONCLUSIONS     REGARDING     Q     MATERIAL     IN     THE     SINGLE 
TRADITIONS    OF   MATTHEW   AND    LUKE 

The  preceding  investigations  represent  the  recension 
of  Q  used  by  Matthew  as  containing  about  two  hundred 
and  sixty-seven  verses,  or  parts  of  verses.  Of  these 
ninety-eight  are  so  closely  parallel  to  Luke  as  to  be  marked 
simply  Q.  Eighty-nine,  paralleled  in  Luke,  but  with 
divergences  such  as  to  indicate  a  different  wording  in  the 
source  that  lay  before  Matthew  and  Luke  and  eighty 
without  any  parallels  in  Luke,  are  assigned  to  QMt. 
The  recension  of  Q  used  by  Luke,  according  to  our  analysis, 
contained  about  two  hundred  and  thirty-eight  verses  or 
parts  of  verses.  Of  these,  ninety-four  are  closely  enough 
paralleled  in  Matthew  to  be  assigned  simply  to  Q;  eighty- 
one  are  paralleled  in  Matthew,  but  with  such  differences 
as  to  suggest  different  wording  in  the  source;  and  sixty- 
three  are  peculiar  to  Luke. 

It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  all  of  Q  is  reproduced 
in  either  Matthew  or  Luke.  But  from  the  treatment 
accorded  to  Mark  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  respectively, 
it  is  to  be  expected  that  Matthew  would  omit  less  of  the 
Q  material  that  lay  before  him  than  would  Luke;  and 
this  presumption  is  confirmed  by  the  results  obtained. 


Q  IN  Single  Tradition  of  Luke  219 

The  examination  of  Luke's  material  indicates  his  com- 
mand of  a  larger  number  of  sources  aside  from  Mark  and 
Q  than  are  apparent  in  Matthew,  and  this  again  agrees 
with  Luke's  statement  in  his  preface.  Luke's  Gospel  is 
longer  than  Matthew's,  and  approaches  the  limit  appar- 
ently convenient  in  ancient  documents.^  This  fact,  to- 
gether with  the  greater  amount  of  material  he  wished 
to  incorporate  from  other  sources,  would  further  account 
for  Luke's  greater  omissions  from  his  Q.  Yet  there  is 
nothing  to  prove  that  Luke's  Q,  as  it  was  certainly  differ- 
ent in  some  of  its  contents,  was  not  also  briefer  than 
Matthew's. 

It  is  possible  to  limit  Q  strictly  to  the  sections  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  in  which  the  correspondences  are 
extremely  close,  to  leave  the  remainder  of  their  double 
tradition  to  unidentified  sources,  and  to  make  no  claims 
for  Q  (QMt  and  QLk)  in  the  single  traditions  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  This  indeed  is  the  procedure  of  most  scholars. 
But  it  has  the  disadvantages  of  ignoring  much  material 
in  the  single  traditions  which  is  extremely  similar  to  the 
Q  material  and  often  stands,  in  one  or  both  Gospels,  in 
closest  connection  with  it,  and  of  leaving  without  explana- 
tion the  material  which  is  nearly  enough  alike  to  require 
some  common  basis  but  not  near  enough  alike  to  indicate 
the  use  of  the  same  recension  of  the  same  document.  The 
assumption  of  QMt  and  QLk,  going  back  to  two  different 
translations,  from  different  copies  of  the  Aramaic  original, 
and  undergoing  the  process  of  alteration  and  accretion 
in  different  surroundings  before  falling  into  the  hands  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  best  accounts  for  the  agreements, 
the  divergences,  and  the  peculiar  but  strongly  similar 
material. 

1  Sanday,  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  25-26. 


220  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Thus  far  we  may  claim  that  the  facts  of  two  hundred 
and  sixty-seven  verses  in  one  source  against  two  hundred 
and  thirty-eight  in  the  other,  ninety-eight  in  one  extremely 
close  in  wording  (with  many  verses  absolutely  identical) 
to  ninety-four  in  the  other,  and  eighty  verses  in  one 
against  sixty-three  in  the  other,  unduplicated,  but  strongly 
suggesting  by  form  and  content  their  relationship  with  the 
rest,  do  not  throw  any  discredit  upon  the  assumption  of 
two  recensions  (translations)  of  one  document,  but  are 
what  would  be  expected.  If  the  date  for  the  original  Q 
is  to  be  set  as  early  as  the  year  60,  or  even  earlier,  and  its 
use  by  Matthew  and  Luke  be  put  as  late  as  85  to  95,  the 
divergences  between  Matthew's  and  Luke's  recensions 
will  be  further  justified. 


CHAPTER  V 

REVIEW  OF  Q  MATERIAL  IN  MATTHEW,  LUKE, 
AND  MARK 

The  accompanying  tables  of  contents  of  Q  material 
in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark  are  prepared  to  facilitate 
comparison  between  the  evangelists  as  to  the  amount  and 
character  of  their  Q  material.  They  will  help  to  deter- 
mine whether  QMt  and  QLk  have  enough  in  common,  and 
of  such  a  sort,  as  to  entitle  them  still  to  be  regarded  as 
recensions  of  the  same  original.  They  will  also  help  us 
toward  a  determination  of  the  original  order  of  Q.  The 
division  into  sections  is  a  somewhat  arbitrary  one,  but 
has  been  made  as  nearly  equal  in  Matthew  and  Luke  as 
possible.  Title  and  number  are  given  to  each  section 
in  each  Gospel,  to  make  the  comparative  study  of  contents 
and  order  more  easy.  Some  slight  differences  may 
occasionally  be  detected  between  the  assignments  as  they 
are  made  here,  and  as  they  were  made  in  the  examinations 
of  the  double  and  single  traditions.  These  will  be  chiefly 
due  to  the  necessity  of  taking  the  material  here  in  sec- 
tions instead  of  in  detached  verses  and  will  not  affect 
the  results  heretofore  obtained. 

CONSIDERATIONS    FAVORING    ANALYSIS    OF   Q   INTO 
QMT   AND    QLK 

In  the  subjoined  tables  of  Q  material  in  Matthew  and 
in  Luke  the  duplicated  material  is  starred.  The  sec- 
tions which  are  identical  (or  in  a  few  cases  not  absolutely 
but  practically  so),  or  in  which  the  deviations  are  so  slight 
as  easily  to  be  ascribed  to  the  editorial  work  of  Matthew 

221 


222 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


TABLE  IV 

Contents  of  Q  Material  in  Matthew 


Sec. 


Chap.  Verse 


Subject 


Source 


8 

9 

10 

*11 

*12 

*13 
*14 

15 

16 

*17 

18 

19 

*20 

21 

*22 

*23 

24 

25 

*26 

*27 

28 

*29 

*30 

*31 
*32 
*33 
*34 

35 
*36 
*37 
*38 

39 
*40 
*41 
*42 

43 

*44 
*45 
*46 

*47 

*48 

49 

*50 
51 


*53 
*54 


vu, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 
vii, 

viii, 
viii, 
viii, 


7-10 
11-12 
1-11 
3 
4 
5 
6 


9 
10-12 
13 

14-16 
17-20 

21-22 
23-24 
25-26 
27-28 
29-30 
31-32 
33-37 
38-42 
43-48 
1-  4 
5-  8 
9-13 
14-15 
16-18 
19-21 
22-23 

24 
25-34 

1-  2 

3-  5 

6 

7-11 
12 

13-14 
15 

16-18 
21-23 
24-27 
28a 

5-10 
11-12 
19-22 
37-38 

1 

5-  6 

7 
8 

9-10 

11-13 
14 


Preaching  of  the  Baptist 

Messianic  announcement  of  the  Baptist 

The  temptation 

Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit 

Blessed  are  the  meek 

Blessed  are  they  that  mourn 

Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  after  right- 
eousness   

Blessed  are  the  merciful 

Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart 

Blessed  are  the  peace-makers 

Blessed  are  the  persecuted 

Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.  If  the  salt, 
etc 

Light  of  the  world.     Candle  and  bushel. 

Relation  to  the  law.  Except  your  right- 
eousness, etc 

Do  not  kill.     Whoever  is  angry 

If  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar 

Agree  with  thine  adversary 

On  adultery  and  lustfulness 

If  thine  eye,  hand,  offend  thee 

On  divorce 

On  the  taking  of  oaths 

On  revenge.     Resist  not 

Love  your  enemies 

On  almsgiving 

On  prayer:  be  not  as  the  hypocrites  are. 

The  Lord's  Prayer 

About  forgiveness 

On  fasting:  not  as  the  hypocrites 

About  treasures  not  on  the  earth 

The  light  of  the  body.  If  tliine  eye  be 
single 

About  serving  two  masters 

About  care 

About  judging 

The  mote  and  the  beam 

Pearls  before  swine 

Seeking  and  finding 

The  tiolden  Rule 

The  narrow  gate 

Warnings  against  false  prophets 

By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them 

Not  everyone  that  saith,  "Lord,  Lord". 

House  on  rock  and  sand 

And  it  came  to  pass  when  he  had  finished 
etc 

The  centurion's  servant  healed 

Many  shall  comi-  from  cast  and  west. .  .  . 

Two  men  who  wonld  follow  .lesus 

The  harvest  is  great,  tlie  laborers  are  few 

The  commission  of  the  twelve 

Not  in  way  of  gentiles.  Lost  sheep  of 
Lsrael 

Preach  the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  hand 

Heal  sick,  raise  dead;  freely  ye  have 
received 


Instruction  as  to  what  to  take.     Laborer 

and  his  food 

Conduct  on  the  way.     Greet  the  house 
Whoever  does  not  receive  you 


Q 

Q 

Q 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 
QMt 
QMt 
QMt 
QMt 

QMt 
QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

Q 

Q 

Q 

QMt 

Q 

QMt 

Q 

Q 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

Q 

QMt 

Q 

Q 

Q  (Mk) 

QMt 
QMt 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 
Q  (Mk) 
Q  (Mk) 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark    223 

TABLE  IV— Continued 


Sec. 


Chap.  Verse 


Subject 

More  tolerable  for  Sodom,  I  send  you 
forth  as  sheep  among  wolves 

Take  no  thot  what  ye  shall  answer 

The  disciple  not  above  liis  teacher 

Fearless  confession.  Be  not  afraid  of 
them;    tilings  hidden  and  revealed  .... 

Division  among  relatives 

Conditions  of  discipleship ;  saving  and 
losing  one's  soul 

He  that  receiveth  you 

The  question  of  the  Baptist,  and  answer 

Jesus'  testimony  to  John.  Law  and 
prophets  till  John 

Woes  upon  Galilean  cities 

Wise  and  prudent.  All  things  are  given 
unto  me 

Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor 

The  priests  blameless;  mercy,  not  sacri- 
fice   

The  Beelzebul  controversy.     Blasphemy 

A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of 
his  heart 

The  sign  of  Jonah 

The  men  of  Nineveh 

Queen  of  the  South 

About  backsliding;  "empty,  swept".  .  .  . 

Whoso  has,  to  him  shall  be  given 

Blessed  are  your  eyes 

Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 

Parable  of  the  Yeast 

Parable  of  Treasure  Hid  in  Field 

Parable  of  the  Pearls 

Parable  of  the  Fish-Net 

Pharisee  instructed  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven 

Blind  leading  the  blind 

Faith  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed 

About  offenses 

Paraljle  of  Lost  Sheep 

The  apostles  on  twelve  thrones 

The  great  commandment 

Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  Moses'  seat .... 

They  bind  heavy  burdens 

They  broaden  their  phylacteries 

Be  not  called  rabbi 

Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven 

Woes  upon  Pharisees 

Lament  over  Jerusalem 

The  day  of  the  Son  of  man 

Where  the  body  is,  there  the  eagles,  etc. . 

The  days  of  Noah 

The  one  taken,  the  other  left 

The  watching  servant 

The  true  and  false  servants 


Source 


*55 

*56 

*57 

*58 

*59 
*60 

*61 
*62 
*63 

*64 
*65 

66 
67 

*68 
*69 

*70 
*71 

*72 

*73 

*74 

*75 

*76 

*77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

*82 

*83 

*84 

85 

*86 

*86a 

87 

88 

89 

90 

*91 

*92 

*93 

*94 

*95 

*96 

*97 

*98 

*99 


X,  15-16 


19-20 

24 

26-33 

34-36 
37-39 

40-42 
2-  6 
7-10 

21-23 
25-27 

28-30 
5-  7 


xn 
xii 

xii 
xii 
xii 
xii 
xiii 
xiii 
xiii 
xiii 
.xiii 
xiii 
xiii 
xiii 

XV 

xvii 

xviii 

xviii 

xix 

xxii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiii 
xxiv 
x.xiv 
xxiv 
xxiv 
xxiv 
x.xiv 


22-32 
24-35 

39-40 

41 

42 

43-45 

12 

16-17 

31-32 

33 

44 

45-46 

47-48 

51-52 

14 
20 

6-  7 
12-14 
28 
35-38 

2-  3 

4 

5 

8-10 
13 

15-16 
37-30 
26-27 
28 

37-39 
40^1 
42-44 
45-51 


Q 
Q 
Q 

QMt 

Q]Mt 

QMt 
QMt 
Q 

Q 
Q 

Q 
QMt 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 

Q 

QMt 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q  (Mk) 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 

Q 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

Q 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 

QMt 

QMt 

Q  (Mk) 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

QMt 

Q 

QMt 

Q 

QMt 

QMt 

Q 

Q 


The  asterisk  indicates  Q  material  in  Matthew  duplicated  in  Luke. 


224 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


TABLE  V 

Contents  of  Q  Material  in  Luke 


Sec. 


Chap.  Verse 


Subject 


Source 


*1 

*2 
*3 

*4 

*5 

*6 
7 

*7a 

*8 

*9 
*10 
*11 
*12 
*13 
*14 

*15 
*16 
*17 

*18 

*19 

*20 
*21 
*22 
*23 
*24 
*25 
26 

*27 

*28 
*29 

*30 

*31 

*32 
*33 
*34 

35 
*36 

*37 
*38 
*39 
*40 
*41 
*42 
*43 
*44 
*45 
*46 

*47 


iii,  7-  9 
iii,  16-17 
iv,  1-13 
vi.  20 
vi,  21 
vi,  22-23 
vi,  24-26 
vi,  31 
vi,  27-36 
vi,  37-38 
vi,  39 
vi,  40 
vi,  41-42 
vi,  43-44 
vi,  45 

vi.  46 

vi,  47-49 
vii,     1-  2, 

7-9 
vii,  18,  22- 

23 
vii,  24-28, 

31-35 
viii,  16 
viii,  17 
vili,  18 

ix,  1-  2 

ix,  5 

ix,  57-60 

ix,  61-62 

x,  2 

X,  3 
x,  4 

(ix,  3) 
x,  5-  7 

x,  8-11 

X,  12 
X,  13-15 
X,  16 

(ix,  48) 
X,  17-20 
X,  21-22 

X,  23-24 
X,  25-28 
xi,  2-  4 
xi,  ^13 
xi,  17-23 
xi,  24-26 
xi,  29-30 
xi,  31 
xi,  32 
xi,  34-35 

xi,  39-52 


Preacliing  of  tlie  Baptist 

Messianic  announcement  of  the  Baptist . 

The  temptation 

Blessed  are  ye  poor 

Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger 

Blessed  are  ye  when  men  hate  you 

Woes  upon  rich,  full,  laugliing,  popular. . 

The  Golden  Rule 

Love  your  enemies 

About  judging 

Parable  of  the  Blind  Leading  the  Blind. . 

The  disciple  not  above  his  teacher 

The  mote  and  the  beam 

Tree  known  by  its  fruits 

A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of 

his  heart 

Why  call  ye  me  "  Lord,  Lord" 

House  with  and  without  foundation 

The  centurion's  servant  healed 

Question  of  John  the  Baptist  and  answer 

Jesus'  testimony  to  John 

Candle  and  bed  (bushel) 

Things  hidden  and  revealed 

Whoever  has,  to  liim  shall  be  given 

The  mission  of  the  twelve 

Whoever  shall  not  receive  you 

Two  men  who  would  follow  Jesus 

A  third;   no  man  putteth  his  hand  to  the 

plow 

The  harvest  is  great;    the  laborers  are 

few 

I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  among  wolves 
Instructions  as  to  what  to  take 

Conduct  on  the  way;    greet  the  house. 

Laborer  worthy  of  his  hire 

Whoever  receives,   or  does  not  receive, 

you 

More  tolerable  for  Sodom 

Woes  upon  Galilean  cities 

He  that  heareth  (receiveth)  you 

Satan  falling  from  heaven,  names  written 
Wise  and  prudent;    all  things  are  given 

unto  me 

Blessed  are  the  eyes  that  see  what  you  see 

The  great  commandment 

The  Lord's  Prayer 

Seeking  and  finding 

Beelzebul  controversy 

About  backsliding;  "empty,  swept".  .  .  . 

The  sign  of  Jonah 

Queen  of  the  South 

The  men  of  Nineveh 

The  light  of  the  body.     If  thine  eye  be 

single 

Woes  upon  Pharisees.     Take  away   the 

key  of  knowledge 


Q 

Q 

Q 

QLk 

QLk 

QLk 

QLk 

Q 

QLk 

QLk 

Q 

Q 

Q 

QLk 

Q 

QLk 
QLk 
Q 

Q 

Q 

QLk 
QLk 

Q  (Mk) 
Q  (Mk) 
Q  (Mk) 
Q 

QLk 

Q 
Q 

Q  (Mk) 


Q  (Mk) 

Q  (Mk) 
Q 
Q 
QLk 

QLk 

Q 
QLk 

Q  (Mk) 

QLk 

Q 

Q  (Mk) 

Q 

QLk 
QLk 
Q 

Q 
QLk 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark    225 

TABLE  V— Continued 


Sec. 


*48 

*49 

*50 
*51 

52 
*53 

54 
*55 
*56 

57 

58 
*59 

60 
*61 
*62 
*63 
*64 

65 


68 

69 
*70 

71 

72 
*73 
*73a 
*74 
*75 
*76 
*77 
*78 
*79 

80 

*81 
*82 
83 
*84 
*85 
*86 


89 


Chap.  Verse 


xii,    4-  9 
xii,  10 


Xll, 

xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xii, 
xiii, 
xiii, 
xiii, 
xiii, 
xiii, 
xiii, 
xiv, 
xiv, 
xiv, 
xiv, 
xiv, 
xiv, 
xvi, 
xvi, 
xvi, 
xvi, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 

xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xvii, 
xviii, 
xxi. 


11-12 
22-31 
32 

33-34 
35-38 
39-40 
42-46 
47-48 
49-50 
51-53 
54-66 
57-59 
18-19 
20-21 
23-24 
25-27 
28-29 
34-35 
7-11 
12-14 
26-27 
28-30 
31-33 
34-35 
13 
16 
17 
18 
1-  2 
3-  4 
5-  6 
20-21 


22-25 

26-27 

28-32 

33 

34-35 

37 

1-  8 
34-35 


xxii,  30 


Subject 

Fearless  confession;  be  not  afraid  of 
them 

Blasphemy  against  Son  of  man  (Beelze- 
bul  controversy) 

Take  no  thot  what  ye  shall  answer 

About  care 

Fear  not,  little  flock 

About  treasures,  not  on  the  earth 

About  the  necessity  for  watchfulness .... 

The  watching  servant 

The  true  and  false  servants 

Beaten  with  few  stripes  or  with  many. .  . 

I  came  to  cast  flre ;  I  have  a  baptism .  .  . 

Division  among  relatives 

Signs  of  the  time 

Agree  with  thine  adversary 

Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 

Parable  of  the  Yeast 

The  narrow  door  (gate) 

When  the  door  is  shut 

Many  from  east  and  west 

Lament  over  Jerusalem 

About  taking  the  chief  seats  at  a  feast. . 

About  whom  to  invite  to  a  feast 

Conditions  of  discipleship 

Man  building  a  tower 

King  going  to  war 

Salt  is  good.     If  the  salt  has  lost 

About  serving  two  masters 

The  law  and  prophets  until  John 

Relation  to  the  law 

Divorce 

Offenses 

On  forgiveness 

Faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed 

The  kingdom  cometh  not  with  observa- 
tion   

The  day  of  the  Son  of  man 

The  days  of  Noah 

The  days  of  Lot 

Saving  and  losing  one's  soul 

Two  in  one  bed  (field) 

Where  the  body  is,  there  the  eagles,  etc. 

The  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge 

The  necessity  for  watchfulness  and 
prayer 

Eating  and  drinking  in  the  kingdom  of 
God ;  twelve  thrones 


Source 


QLk 

Q  (Mk) 
QLk 
Q 

QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
Q 
Q 

QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
Q  (Mk) 
Q 

QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
Q 

QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
QLk 
QLk 

(MklQLk 
Q 
Q 

QLk 
Q  (Mk) 
Q  (Mk) 
QLk 
QLk 

QLk 

QLk 

QLk 

QLk 

Q 

QLk 

Q 

QLk 

QLk 

QLk 


*  The  asterisk  indicates  Q  material  in  Luke  duplicated  in  Matthew. 


or  Luke,  are  marked  Q.  The  sections  unduplicated,  or 
duplicated  but  with  deviations  too  great  to  be  assigned 
to  Matthew  or  Luke  working  upon  a  similarly  worded 
text,  are  marked  QMt  or  QLk. 

As   to   the  generally   homogeneous   character  of  the 
sections  marked  Q,  there  will  be  no  dispute.     Since  these 


226  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

are  restricted  to  the  passages  showing  the  very  closest 
parallelism,  there  can  be  no  question  about  the  propriety 
of  assigning  them  to  Q.  The  only  question  will  be  as  to 
the  assignment  of  any  unduplicated  material  to  any  form 
of  Q,  and  the  assignment  of  the  duplicated  but  not 
closely  paralleled  sections  to  QMt  and  QLk  instead  of 
simply  to  Q.  Reasons  have  been  given^  for  such  assign- 
ments in  each  case.  But  a  few  sections  may  be  taken 
as  again  illustrating  the  advantages  of  the  QMt-QLk 
hypothesis. 

passages  closely  similar,  yet  with  divergences  too 
great  to  be  accounted  for  upon  the  hypoth- 
ESIS  or   AN    UNDIFFERENTIATED    Q 

Sections  42  in  Matthew  and  16  in  Luke  contain  the 
saying  about  the  house  on  the  rock  and  the  sand  (with 
and  without  foundations) .  These  sections  are  universally 
ascribed  to  Q,  both  from  their  general  similarity  and  from 
their  position  in  each  Gospel  as  the  conclusion  to  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Plain).  But  the  wording  is  very 
dissimilar.  Only  those  words  are  alike  which  must 
necessarily  be  so  if  two  men  were  using  the  same  subject 
as  an  illustration;  and  this  is  true,  not  only  of  the  word- 
ing, but  of  the  thought.  Those  who  assign  the  passage 
simply  to  Q  are  compelled  to  suppose  that,  Matthew 
representing  the  original  text,  Luke  has  observed  that  the 
correct  antithesis  is  not  between  a  house  built  on  a  rock 
and  a  house  built  on  the  sand,  but  between  one  built 
with  a  foundation  and  one  built  without  one.  So  he 
says  nothing  about  the  soil,  whether  rock  or  sand,  but 
says  that  in  one  case  the  man  built  upon  the  surface,  and 
that  in  the  other  he  digged  deep  and  laid  a  good  founda- 
tion.    The   amount   of   re-working,    reinterpreting,    and 

1  Pp.  129-206. 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark     227 

re-writing  thus  required  of  Luke  is  wholly  unjustified 
by  any  treatment  he  has  accorded  to  any  of  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  in  Mark.  It  is  presumable  that  he  exercised  his 
editorial  function  on  his  recension  of  Q  as  he  did  upon 
the  sayings-material  in  Mark.  But  it  is  much  more 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  story  that  lay  before  him 
in  his  source  lay  before  him  in  a  form  considerably 
different  from  that  which  it  had  in  Matthew's  source. 
The  assumption  of  the  two  recensions  therefore  has  the 
advantage  of  preserving  the  section  for  Q,  without  the 
disadvantage  of  ascribing  to  Luke  a  wholly  unwarrantable 
amount  of  re-working. 

Sections  4-11  in  Matthew  and  4-6  in  Luke  contain 
their  different  versions  of  the  beatitudes.  Those  who 
assign  indiscriminately  to  Q  all  the  verses  contained  in 
these  sections  have  to  assume  that  Luke  omitted  five  of 
the  beatitudes.  No  reason  can  be  assigned  for  his  doing 
so,  and  it  is  wholly  improbable  that  he  would  have 
deliberately  mutilated  a  passage  so  liturgically  complete 
and  impressive.  The  five  omitted  beatitudes  are  addi- 
tions to  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  manufactured  on  the  basis 
of  Old  Testament  exemplars.  But  if  anything  stood  in 
Q,  these  five  beatitudes  stood  there,  only  not  in  Luke's 
recension,  but  in  Matthew's. 

WITH  Matthew's  q  before  him,  luke  would  not  have 

OMITTED    so    MUCH   OF   IT 

Those  who  argue  for  Luke's  omission  of  so  much  Q 
material  which  (according  to  their  assumption)  stood 
before  him,  allege  as  a  precedent  his  omission  of  so  much 
Marcan  material,  especially  of  the  continuous  section 
Mk  vi,  45 — viii,  21.  It  is  held  by  many  students  that 
the  copy  of  Mark  used  by  Luke  did  not  contain  this 


228  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

section.^  The  writer  does  not  see  the  necessity  for  this 
assumption  as  there  are  obvious  reasons  for  Luke's 
omission  of  the  section  if  it  stood  in  his  copy  of  Mark. 
It  contains  the  doublet  of  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand. 
Luke  avoids  doublets  as  far  as  possible.  It  contains 
the  story  of  the  walking  on  the  sea,  a  story  similar  in 
many  respects  to  that  of  the  storm  at  sea  which  Luke  had 
already  taken  from  Mark.  The  dispute  about  hand- 
washing and  the  things  that  defile  would  have  no  interest 
for  Luke  or  his  gentile  readers.  The  story  of  the  Canaan- 
itish  woman  and  her  difficulties  in  securing  help  from 
Jesus,  and  the  methods  of  healing  the  dumb  man,  would 
offend  Luke's  non-Jewish  sympathies  and  his  artistic 
sense.  The  discussion  about  leaven  he  would  omit 
because  he  had  a  partial  parallel  from  another  source. 
In  this  whole  section  which  Luke  omits  from  Mark  there 
are  very  few  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  those  of  a  character 
not  to  please  or  interest  Luke.  The  omission  of  such  a 
section,  or  of  anything  else  that  Luke  omits  from  Mark, 
offers  no  precedent  for  the  omissions  he  is  alleged  to  have 
made  from  Q. 

In  the  preceding  table  of  contents  for  Q  material  in 
Matthew  (pp.  222-23),  there  are  twenty-nine  sections 
for  which  Luke  has  no  parallel.  Five  of  these,  the 
omitted  beatitudes,  have  already  been  discussed.  Of 
the  remaining  twenty-four  there  are  a  few  which,  it  may 
be  admitted,  Luke  might  not  have  cared  to  include,  even 
if  they  were  in  his  Q.  Such  are  the  sections  on  oaths, 
on  fasting,  on  the  blamelessness  of  the  priests,  and  on 
the  Pharisee  instructed  in  the  kingdom  of  God — all  of 
a  strongly  Jewish  character.     To  these  may  be  added 

'  So  Wendling.  Stanton  also  says  Mark's  connection  is  better  with 
Mk  vi,  45 — vii,  23,  omitted. 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark    229 

four  other  brief  sections,  all  from  Matthew's  discourse 
against  the  Pharisees;  especially,  the  reference  to  phylac- 
teries, which  would  have  no  meaning  for  Luke's  readers, 
and  the  injunction  not  to  be  called  "Rabbi."     The  say- 
ing, "Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs  [heathen] 
nor  cast  your  pearls  before  swine  [unbelievers],"  he  would 
hardly  have  taken  if  it  had  stood  in  his  source.     But 
there  are  other  sections  which  would  particularly  have 
delighted  him,  and  which  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  he 
should  have  read  and  omitted.     Such  are  the  sections  on 
alms-giving  (a  favorite  subject  with  Luke;  see  Lk  xi,  41; 
xii,  33);  on  prayer  (a  subject  which  he  mentions  eighteen 
times  against  Matthew's  ten,  outside  of  this  passage); 
the  three  little  parables  of  the  Treasure  Hid  in  the  Field, 
the  Pearls,  and  the  Fish-Net,  and  the  beautiful  saying,  so 
fitted  to  Luke's  universalistic  purpose,  "Come  unto  me." 
Much  less  can  any  reason  be  assigned  for  Matthew's 
omission   of  the   sixteen   unduplicated   sayings   ascribed 
to   QLk.i     Matthew   almost  invariably  shortens  Mark's 
narratives,  and  sometimes  omits  a  narrative  section,  but 
practically  never  omits  a  saying  of  Jesus  given  in  Mark. 
The  case  of  the  third  would-be  follower  of  Jesus,  with 
the  particularly  fine  saying,  "No  man  having  put  his  hand 
to  the  plow";   the  little  parables  of  the  Man  Building  a 
Tower  and  the  King  Going  to  War;    the  sayings,   "I 
came  to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth,"  "I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,"  "Fear  not,  little  flock,"  would  attract 
Matthew  as  much  as  they  did  Luke,  and  with  Matthew's 
almost  slavish  adherence  to  Mark  in  all  Mark's  sayings- 
material,  no  reason  can  be  given  for  his  omission  of  them. 

■  It  should  be  said  that  most  of  those  who  argue  for  Luke's  omission  of 
so  much  Q  material  assign  these  sixteen  sections  to  some  special  source 
of  Luke's. 


230  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

If  it  be  asked  why  these  unduplicated  sections,  which 
have  been  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk,  are  not  assigned 
simply  to  special  and  undetermined  sources,  the  answer 
is  that  all  these  sections  stand  more  or  less  closely  con- 
nected with  Q  material,  they  are  strongly  similar  to  the 
other  Q  matter  in  form  and  idea,  and  equally  different  in 
form  and  feeling  from  the  passages  assigned  to  special 
sources.  They  consist,  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  of 
short  parables  of  the  undoubted  Q  type  (cf.  the  Treasure 
Hid  in  the  Field,  the  Pearls,  the  Fish-Net,  the  Unjust 
Judge)  and  of  short  sayings;  whereas  the  special  source 
or  sources  (whether  of  Matthew  or  Luke)  consist  of  narra- 
tives (the  opening  chapters  of  both  Gospels,  the  Peter- 
sections  in  Matthew,  the  death  of  Judas  in  Matthew,  Jesus 
before  Herod  in  Luke,  the  watch  at  the  grave  in  Matthew, 
the  Emmaus  incident  in  Luke,  and  the  peculiar  matter  of 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  in  their  accounts  of  the  days  in 
Jerusalem)  and  of  story-parables  like  the  Prodigal  Son, 
the  Lost  Coin,  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  Entrusted 
Money.  These  similarities  in  the  material  assigned  to 
a  special  source  or  sources  are  not  enough  to  prove  the 
unity  of  that  source  for  either  Matthew  or  Luke,  and  are 
not  so  intended;  but  they  are  enough  to  distinguish  the 
material  so  assigned  from  that  assigned  to  QMt  and  QLk, 
and  to  establish  the  comparative  homogeneity  of  this 
latter  material  in  each  case. 

THE  "secondary  TRAITS "  ARE  IN  QMT  AND  QLK,  NOT  IN  Q 

The  distinction  between  Q  and  QMt  and  QLk  is  further 
justified  by  the  consideration  of  secondary  traits.  QMt 
and  QLk  represent  deviations  from,  or  additions  to,  an 
original  Q.  Since  these  deviations  and  additions  would 
go  back  to  a  very  early  time,  and  even  when  compara- 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark    231 

tively  late  might  embody  an  early  tradition,  the  presence 
of  primary  traits  in  QMt  and  QLk  need  not  surprise  us.^ 
Since  Q  cannot  be  proved  to  be  earlier  than  60-65,  it 
may  also  easily  contain  secondary  traits.  But  since  QMt 
and  QLk  are  in  general  later  than  Q,  and  presumably  repre- 
sent a  later  tradition,  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find 
in  them  a  larger  number  of  secondary  characteristics. 

In  the  material  assigned  to  Q  in  Tables  IV  and  V-  the 
writer  believes  that  not  many  unmistakably  secondary 
traits  appear.  The  messianic  announcement  of  the  Bap- 
tist is  certainly  primary  as  compared  with  Mark  predict- 
ing Jesus  as  the  fire-judge,  contrary  to  the  facts  of  his 
life.  The  temptation  in  Q  is  also  primary  as  compared 
with  Mark,  with  the  exception  of  the  conversation 
between  Jesus  and  John  in  Matthew,  which  is  obviously 
secondary  and  belongs  to  QMt.  Of  the  sayings,  only  a 
few  have  a  secondary  sound.  Such  are  especially  those 
connected  with  the  instructions  to  the  twelve,  which  seem 
to  embody  some  of  the  experiences,  or  bespeak  some  of 
the  needs,  of  the  early  Christian  itinerant  preachers: 
"The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire  [or  his  keep]";  "I  send 
you  forth  as  sheep  among  wolves";  "The  disciple  is 
not  above  his  master";  "The  law  and  the  prophets 
prophesied  until  John";  perhaps  also  Matthew's  long 
beatitude,  "Blessed  are  ye  when  men  persecute  you,"  etc. 

But  by  far  the  most  of  the  secondary  traits,  and  the 
most  unmistakable  of  them,  are  found  in  the  additions 
to  and  deviations  from  the  Q  tradition  in  QMt  and  QLk. 
Such  are  the  additional  beatitudes  supplied  by  Matthew's 
Q  and  made  up  of  Old  Testament  quotations;  the  insertion 

1  See  especially  Matthew's  "Go  not  into  any  way  of  the  gentiles," 
which  might  be  assigned  to  Q,  with  obvious  reasons  for  Luke's  omission. 

2  Pp.  222-2.5. 


232  Sources  of  the, Synoptic  Gospels 

into  the  temptation  story,  in  QMt,  of  the  protest  of  John 
the  Baptist  and  the  answer  of  Jesus;  the  warning  against 
false  prophets  in  Matthew;  the  speech  about  those  who 
say  "Lord,  Lord";  the  prediction  of  division  among 
relatives  (seemingly  answering  the  condition  in  which  the 
early  church  found  itself);  the  many  coming  from  the 
east  and  the  west  (written  in  the  days  of  the  expanding 
church);  the  sign  of  Jonah  interpreted  (in  Matthew)  as 
referring  to  the  resurrection ;  the  parable  of  the  Fish-Net 
with  its  eschatological  interpretation;  the  saying  about 
the  twelve  apostles  on  twelve  thrones;  and  the  various 
sections  interpolated,  apparently  from  QMt  and  QLk, 
into  Mark's  apocalypse. 

Closer  analysis  of  particular  sections  tends  to  corrob- 
orate this  impression  of  secondary  traits  as  coming  not 
from  Q  but  from  the  recensions.  For  example,  the  sayings 
about  the  light  and  the  bushel  and  about  the  salt  that 
had  lost  its  savor  appear  to  have  stood  in  Q.  But  from 
his  own  recension  of  Q,  Matthew  prefixed  to  the  saying 
what  Luke  did  not  find  in  his  recension,  "Ye  are  the  light 
of  the  world,"  "Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  two  sayings 
which  seem  to  reflect  the  exalted  estimate  of  the  apostles 
in  the  sub-apostolic  age.  The  Lord's  Prayer  probably 
stood  in  the  original  Q  much  as  it  is  in  Luke;  Matthew's 
amplifications,  found  in  his  source,  have  the  liturgical 
and  ecclesiastical  coloring  that  betray  the  later  time. 

So,  further,  Luke's  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge,  with 
its  generally  Q  sound,  but  with  its  pathetic  question  ap- 
pended (from  Luke's  recension),  "Nevertheless,  when  the 
Son  of  man  cometh,  shall  he  find  the  faith  on  the  earth  ?" 
bespeaks  the  times  of  persecution  when  the  survival  of 
the  new  faith  looked  problematical.  Matthew's  "Cast 
not  your  pearls  before  swine,"  "The  Pharisee  instructed 


Review  of  Q  in  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark     233 

in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  "The  scribes  and  Pharisees 
in  Moses'  seat,"  all  from  QMt,  and  Luke's  "Rejoice 
that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven,"  his  saying  about 
discerning  the  signs  of  the  time  (of  the  parousia),  his 
"kingdom  cometh  not  with  observation,"  and  his  twice 
repeated  injunction  to  watchfulness,  all  from  QLk, 
certainly  have  a  secondary  sound.  The  presence  of  so 
many  secondary  traits  in  QMt  and  QLk  does  not  prove 
that  the  passages  so  assigned  might  not  be  assigned  to 
S  or  some  other  special  or  undefined  source;  but  many 
if  not  all  of  them  being  passages  ordinarily  assigned 
simply  to  Q,  the  large  number  of  secondary  traits  in 
them  does  tend  to  substantiate,  in  an  unlooked-for 
manner,  the  assumption  of  the  two  recensions. 


CHAPTER  VI 
DID  MARK  ALSO  USE  Q? 

In  the  introduction  to  his  Beginnings  of  Gospel  History, 
Bacon  remarks  that  the  "dependence  of  Mark  upon  Q 
can  be  demonstrated."  Wellhausen  says  that  "inde- 
pendence [between  Mark  and  Q]  is  not  to  be  thot  of." 
Streeter,  in  Oxford  Studies,  has  made  the  most  recent  and 
thoro  study  of  the  relation  of  Mark  and  Q,  and  some  of 
his  results  have  already  been  utilized  and  acknowledged. 
Even  Dr.  Sanday,  in  the  introduction  to  Oxford  Studies, 
confesses  himself  an  unwilling  convert  to  the  theory  that 
Mark  was  acquainted  with,  and  made  some  use  of,  Q. 
Wellhausen  alone,  so  far  as  I  know,  maintains  the  appar- 
ently untenable  position  that  Q  is  later  than  Mark,  and 
that  where  the  two  overlap,  Q  has  used  Mark  instead  of 
Mark  using  Q.  His  acceptance  of  this  position  is  partially 
explained  by  the  fact  that  he  makes  no  distinction  between 
the  original  Q  and  the  recensions  of  it  in  the  hands  of 
Matthew  and  Luke;  he  also  allows  to  Q  much  material 
(e.g.,  the  conversation  between  John  and  Jesus  at  the 
baptism)  which  other  scholars,  without  the  hypothesis 
of  QMt  and  QLk,  ascribe  to  the  hand  of  Matthew  or 
Luke.  Harnack  and  Wernle  maintain  the  priority  of 
Q  to- Mark.  Wernle  concedes  some  small  use  of  Q  by 
Mark,  and  Harnack  thinks  Mark  was  at  least  "acquainted 
with"  Q. 

The  discrimination  between  QMt  and  QLk  and  the 
original  Q  makes  unnecessary  a  good  deal  of  the  work 
that  has  heretofore  been  done  toward  determining  the 
primary  and  secondary  traits  in  Mark  and  Q  respectively. 

234 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  235 

Assuming  that  Mark  used  either  the  original  Q,  or  as 
near  to  the  original  of  that  document  as  we  can  yet  get, 
the  recensions  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke  would  be  per- 
haps thirty,  certainly  twenty,  years  later  than  that  used 
by  Mark.  In  the  fifty  or  more  verses  of  Mark  that 
appear  to  have  stood  also  in  Q,  there  is  nothing  that  can 
be  shown  to  be  later  than, the  year  70  (the  date  generally 
assigned  to  Mark).  There  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the 
author  had  witnessed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  the 
events  immediately  leading  up  to  it.  The  presence  of 
the  same  material  in  Mark  and  Q  is  demonstrated  by  the 
agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  against  Mark,  or  by  the 
deviations  of  the  one  or  the  other  of  them  from  the  Marcan 
form  of  a  saying,  in  such  way  as  not  to  admit  of  explana- 
tion except  by  the  assumption  of  two  sources  (Mark  and 
Q)  in  the  hands  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  In  other  words, 
if  Mark  did  use  Q,  but  if  he  used  the  same  text  of  it  as 
was  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  if  the  three  followed 
Q  with  equal  faithfulness,  in  all  such  instances  Q  would 
fail  to  appear,  since  both  Matthew  and  Luke  would  appear 
to  be  following  only  Mark.  It  is  therefore  where  there 
are  deviations  of  either  Matthew  or  Luke  from  Mark  in 
sections  where  the  other  follows  Mark  closely,  or  where 
there  are  agreements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  against  Mark 
in  sayings-material,  that  the  presence  of  Q  behind  Mark 
can  be  detected. 

Upon  the  hypothesis  of  Q  without  QMt  or  QLk,  the 
argument  by  which  the  use  of  Q  by  Mark,  as  against  the 
use  of  Mark  by  Q,  was  proven,  consisted  of  picking  out  the 
primary  and  secondary  traits  in  Mark  and  Q  respectively, 
and  of  showing  that  the  primary  traits  were  in  Q  and  the 
secondary  in  Mark.  But  this  was  very  difficult  to  do,  so 
long  as,  e.g.,  the  Peter  incidents  peculiar  to  Matthew,  or 


236  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

the  conversation  during  the  baptism,  were  attributed  to 
Q.  For  these  were  indisputably  secondary.  If  the 
priority  of  Mark  was  to  be  maintained,  all  such  traits  had 
to  be  removed  from  Q  and  assigned  to  the  evangelist  or 
to  some  special  source. 

Upon  the  theory  now  advocated  by  the  writer,  these 
secondary  traits  are  practically  all  assigned,  not  to  the 
original  Q,  but  to  QMt  or  QLk.i  But  if  Mark  used  any 
form  of  Q,  it  was  not  QMt  or  QLk,  but  some  much  simpler, 
more  primary,  and  doubtless  less  extended,  form.  The 
presence  of  secondary  traits  in  QMt  and  QLk  therefore 
does  nothing  toward  proving  the  secondary  character  of 
Q  in  its  original  form,  or  in  such  an  early  form  as  would 
have  been  used  by  Mark.  Since  nothing  can  be  found  in 
Q  which  is  either  demonstrably  or  probably  later  than  the 
date  of  Mark,  the  assumption  that  Mark  used  Q  may  be 
permitted  to  stand ;  and  with  the  removal  of  the  secondary 
traits  to  the  recensions,  it  does  not  require  the  minute 
analysis  which  earlier  hypotheses  made  necessary,  since 
there  are  no  longer  any  indications  militating  against 
Mark's  use  of  Q.  What  now  remains  therefore  is  to 
determine  as  nearly  as  possible  what  material  stood  in 
Mark  and  Q. 

WHAT   MATERIAL   DID    MARK    TAKE    FROM    Q? 

In  the  attempt  to  determine  what  material  Mark  has 
taken  from  Q,  an  effort  will  also  be  made  to  decide 
whether  Matthew  and  Luke  took  the  same  material 
directly  from  Q,  or  indirectly  from  Q  thru  Mark.  The 
verses  which  one  or  both  of  them  appear  to  have  taken 
directly  from  Q  (tho  these  verses  stand  also  in  Mark)  will 
be  added  to  the  number  of  verses  already  attributed 
to  Q  (or  QMt  and  QLk).     We  shall  thus  have  before  us 

'  See  analyses  on  pp.  230-33. 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  237 

the  largest  possible  sum-total  of  Q  material.  The  tables 
of  contents  already  made  out  for  the  Q  material,  as  it 
now  stands  in  Matthew  and  Luke  respectively/  will  throw 
further  light  upon  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  regard- 
ing QMt  and  QLk  as  recensions  of  one  original  document. 
The  same  tables  will  serve  to  indicate  the  probable  order 
of  Q,  and  the  investigation  now  following  will  then  be 
used  to  determine  what  acquaintance,  if  any,  Mark  had 
with  Q,  and  what  use,  if  any,  he  made  of  that  document. 

THE  MESSIANIC  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF  THE  BAPTIST 
(Mk  i,  7-8) 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  close  to  Mark  in  their  wording 
here,  but  agree  against  him  in  putting  his  verses  in  reverse 
order  and  in  the  addition  of  Kal  irvpl.  They  then  each 
add  a  verse  (Mt  iii,  12;  Lk  iii,  17)  which  has  already  been 
assigned  to  Q.  In  each  Gospel  this  verse  develops  the 
idea  introduced  by  the  Kal  irvpl.  The  order  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  is  here  necessarily,  and  apparently  originally, 
different  from  that  of  Mark,  since  the  relative  clause 
which  begins  the  additional  matter  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
depends  upon  the  order  of  sentences  in  these  two  Gospels 
and  will  not  fit  Mark's  arrangement.  In  spite  therefore 
of  the  close  agreement  of  Matthew's  vs.  11  and  Luke's 
vs.  16  with  Mark,  these  verses  must  be  assigned  to  Q. 
In  other  words,  it  is  probable  that  here  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  depending  directly  upon  Q,  and  not  merely 
indirectly  upon  him  thru  Mark. 

THE    BAPTISM    OF   JESUS 

(Mk  i,  9-11) 

This  section  is  added  to  Q  by  many  critics,  on  the 

ground   of  its   position   between   the   preaching   of   the 

Baptist  and  the  temptation  of  Jesus,  both  related  in  Q. 

iPp.  222-35. 


238  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

The  agreements  between  Matthew  and  Luke  against 
Mark  are  not,  however,  frequent  or  important  enough 
by  themselves  to  suggest  this  assignment.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  addition  in  Matthew  of  the  conversation 
between  Jesus  and  John  points  to  a  source  in  that  respect 
different  from  that  of  either  Mark  or  Luke.  Matthew 
also  represents  the  voice  from  heaven  as  directed  to  the 
crowd,  and  not  to  Jesus  alone,  as  do  Mark  and  Luke.  In 
both  these  deviations  Matthew  has  an  apparently  later 
tradition,  and  has  preferred  to  follow  his  recension  of 
Q.  Either  Luke's  recension  here  agreed  substantially 
with  Mark's,  or  else  Luke  has  followed  Mark  more  closely 
than  Q. 

THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS 
(Mk  i,  12-13) 
The  very  brief  account  in  Mark  is  followed  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  by  nine  and  eleven  verses  respectively,  which 
have  been  already  assigned  to  Q.  The  question  here  is 
whether  Matthew  and  Luke  followed  Mark  in  the  first 
two  verses  of  their  narratives,  and  after  that  forsook 
him  for  Q,  or  whether  they  followed  Q  thruout. 
Matthew  and  Luke  agree  in  substituting  5td/3oXos  for 
Mark's  aaravas,  in  the  omission  of  the  clause  "and  was 
with  the  wild  beasts,"  and  in  placing  the  temptation  in 
the  period  of  hunger  following  the  forty  days'  fast.  They 
apparently  followed  Q  rather  than  Mark,  but  each 
introduced  some  changes  out  of  deference  to  the  latter. 
Mark's  account  is  similar  enough  to  that  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  to  be  a  brief  extract  from  Q. 

THE    BEELZEBUL   CONTROVERSY 
(Mk  iii,  20-29) 
This  Marcan  section  is  duphcated  in  Mt  xii,  24-32, 
and  Lk  xi,  15-23;  xii,  10.     Of  these  Matthean  and  Lucan 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  239 

accounts,  Mt  xii,  26-28,  and  Lk  xi,  18-20,  are  practically 
identical,  but  not  paralleled  in  Mark.  In  xii,  29,  Matthew 
follows  Mk  iii,  27,  almost  word  for  word.  At  the  same 
place  Luke  forsakes  Mark  and  deviates  widely,  tho  agree- 
ing closely  with  Matthew  in  the  three  preceding  verses. 
Matthew's  xii,  30,  and  Luke's  xi,  23,  are  again  unparal- 
leled in  Mark,  and  are  evidently  from  Q.  Matthew's 
vs.  31  again  goes  back  to  Mark's  vs.  28,  but  is  influenced 
by  his  own  Q  material  in  the  following  verses.  The 
derivation  of  Mark  from  Q  in  this  passage  is  rendered 
doubly  sure  by  the  facts  that  the  verses  seriously  interrupt 
the  connection  in  Mark,  and  that  the  passage  here  con- 
secutive in  Matthew  and  Mark  is  separated  in  Luke. 
Matthew  is  a  conflation  of  Mark  and  Q.  Luke  is  appar- 
ently Q  thruout.  Matthew's  Marcan  and  Q  material 
being  mixed,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  Matthew's 
Q  was  here  identical  with  Luke's  or  not.  Out  of  this 
section  there  should  be  added  to  Q  the  passages  Mt  xii, 
25,  and  Lk  xi,  17,  21. 

FIVE  DETACHED  SAYINGS 
(Mk  iv,  21-25) 
Such  detached  sayings,  unconnected  with  Mark's 
narrative,  create  at  once  a  presumption  of  their  having 
been  taken  from  Q.  Luke  has  the  first  saying  (about 
the  lamp)  in  two  places  (viii,  16;  xi,  33),  indicating  that 
he  found  it  both  in  Mark  and  Q.  He  also  has  a  duplicate 
for  the  second  saying,  while  the  fifth  is  repeated  twice 
in  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  Mk  iv,  23,  is  the  proverbial 
saying  used  twice  in  both  Mark  and  Luke  and  three 
times  in  Matthew.  There  is  thus  only  one  of  Mark's 
sayings  (iv,  24)  which  is  not  given  twice  by  Matthew  or 
Luke  or  both.  An  additional  indication  of  the  occur- 
rence of  these  verses  in  Q,  and  Mark's  derivation  of  them 


240  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

from  that  source,  is  the  fact  that  they  are  part  of  a  section 
in  Mark  which  seriously  interrupts  his  narrative,  interpos- 
ing a  private  conversation  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples 
between  the  teaching  in  the  boat  and  the  storm  on  the 
lake.  The  verses  are  also  given  by  Matthew  in  four 
different  chapters,  and  by  Luke  in  two,  and  by  both  in 
different  order  from  each  other  and  from  Mark.  All 
five  of  these  Marcan  verses,  therefore,  and  their  parallels 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  should  be  assigned  to  Q. 

THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  MUSTARD  SEED 
(Mk  iv,  30-32) 
This  parable  has  a  strong  resemblance  to  those  already 
assigned  to  Q.  Matthew's  connection  is  the  same  as 
Mark's;  Luke's  is  different.  Luke  agrees  with  Mark 
in  beginning  with  a  question,  tho  he  omits  the  second 
half  of  the  double  question  in  Mark.  Matthew  follows 
Mark,  or  is  strongly  influenced  by  him  in  Mt  xiii,  32. 
Matthew  and  Luke  agree  against  Mark  in  the  words  ov 
\aficbv  dpdpcoTTos.  According  to  a  suggestion  of  Well- 
hausen's,  ej3a\ep  els  Krjirov  and  eaireLpeu  ev  rw  ay p(jo  may 
be  translation  variants.  In  the  conclusion  Matthew  and 
Luke  agree  much  more  closely  with  each  other  than  with 
Mark.  Except  for  the  influence  of  Mark  at  the  begin- 
ning, Luke  seems  to  be  following  Q,  while  Matthew's 
parable  is  a  conflation  of  Q  and  Mark.  If  Mark  here 
rests  upon  Q,  then  Matthew  is  conflating  a  parable 
which  Mark  drew  from  Q  with  the  same  parable  as  he 
(Matthew)  found  it  in  his  recension  of  Q.  Complicated 
as  this  may  seem,  Mark's  parable  is  too  closely  similar 
to  Luke's  to  have  had  any  but  a  Q  origin.  To  Q  in  Luke 
should  be  added  Lk  xiii,  18-19;  and  to  Q  in  Matthew, 
Mt  xiii,  31-32. 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  241 

the  sending  out  of  the  twelve 
(Mk  vi,  7-11) 
This  passage  is  to  be  compared  with  Mt  x,  1,  7-8, 
9-16,  and  Lk  ix,  1-5;  x,  1,  3,  4-7,  9-12  (with  considerable 
rearrangement  of  order  in  the  verses).  The  Marcan 
material,  as  it  reappears  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  is 
mixed  with  much  other  material  from  Q.  Luke's  addi- 
tion of  a  mission  of  seventy  and  his  division  of  this  Marcan 
material  between  that  mission  and  the  mission  of  the 
twelve  add  to  the  confusion.  Matthew  (x,  14)  and  Luke 
(ix,  5)  agree  in  six  words  against  Mark.  In  the  verb 
eKTiva^ere,  Matthew  (x,  14)  follows  Mark  against  Luke. 
Matthew  and  Luke  agree  against  Mark  in  saying  fxrjre 
pa^bov  instead  of  et  /^t)  pa^bov.  In  those  parts  of 
Matthew's  and  Luke's  narratives  that  are  not  paralleled 
in  Mark  there  is  probably  an  oral  tradition  mingled  with 
the  Q  material.  Mark's  version  might  cbe  onsidered  an 
excerpt,  rather  than  a  copy,  of  Q.  To  Q  in  Matthew  may 
be  added  Mt  x,  1,  9,  10a6,  14;  and  to  Q  in  Luke,  Lk  ix, 
1,  3,  5;  X,  4,  10. 

A  SIGN  REFUSED 
(Mk  viii,  12) 
On  the  ground  of  Matthew's  having  doublets  for  this 
saying  (Mt  xii,  39;  xvi,  4)  and  Luke  a  parallel  to  it 
(Lk  xi,  29),  it  may  without  further  consideration  be 
assigned  to  Q.  The  agreement  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
and  the  agreement  of  Matthew's  doublets,  in  adding  "Ex- 
cept the  sign  of  Jonah,"  may  be  taken  to  indicate  the 
difference  here  between  Mark's  Q  and  the  later  recensions. 

"whosoever  will  follow  me" 
(Mk  viii,  34-35) 
Matthew  has  doublets  for  this  saying  in  x,  38-39;  xvi, 
24-25;    Luke  in  ix,  23-24;   xiv,  27;    xvii,  33.     Matthew 


242  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

and  Luke  copy  the  Marcan  version  with  unusual  fideUty 
thru  about  forty  words.  They  agree  against  him  in 
saying  el'  rts  for  Mark's  octtls,  in  the  substitution  of  a 
form  (tho  not  the  same  form)  of  the  verb  epxofxat  for 
OLKoKovdelv,  and  in  the  employment  of  a  subjunctive 
in  place  of  an  indicative  of  the  verb  airoXXvfjLt.  Luke 
adds  the  phrase  "day  by  day."  Considering  the  remark- 
ably close  verbal  agreement  as  well  as  the  agreement  in 
order,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Matthew  in  xvi,  24-25, 
and  Luke  in  ix,  23-24,  are  following  Mark;  their  agree- 
ments against'  him  may  be  explained  partly  by  a  desire 
to  correct  his  style,  and  partly  by  assimilation.  The 
resemblances  between  the  other  member  of  the  doublet 
in  each  case,  and  the  saying  as  here  reported  in  Mark 
(i.e.,  between  Mt  x,  38-39;  Lk  xiv,  27;  xvii,  33,  and  Mk 
viii,  34-35),  are  sufficiently  close  to  suggest,  if  not  to 
prove,  that  Mark's  saying  was  derived  by  him  from  Q. 
Since  these  verses  have  already  been  assigned  to  Q  in 
the  examination  of  the  double  tradition,  they  yield  no 
new  Q  material  here. 

''whoever  is  ashamed  of  me" 
(Mk  viii,  38) 
Matthew  has  a  parallel  of  this  saying,  and  Luke  has 
doublets  for  it  (Mt  x,  33;   Lk  ix,  26;  xii,  9).     The  verse 
may  be  assigned  to  Q. 

ABOUT  OFFENSES 
(Mk  ix,  42-48) 
Matthew  here  follows  Mark  rather  closely,  except 
that  he  adds  "Woe  to  the  world  because  of  offenses," 
and  conflates  Mark's  two  sayings  about  the  hand  and  the 
foot  into  one.  Matthew  has  doublets  for  Mk  ix,  43, 
45-47,  in  Mt  v,  29-30,  and  xviii,  8-9.     Luke  has  avoided 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  243 

the  doublet,  but  has  a  parallel  to  Mark's  verses  in  Lk 
xvii,  1-2.     The  section  may  be  assigned  to  Mark  and  Q. 

ABOUT  SALT 
(Mk  ix,  49-50) 
The  little  saying  in  vs.  49  is  unduplicated  in  either  of 
the  other  Gospels.  If  any  source  be  suggested  for  it, 
nothing  more  likely  than  Q  could  be  suggested.  If  the 
saying  be  assigned  to  Q,  it  will  be  the  only  Q  saying  in 
Mark  not  taken  over  by  either  Matthew  or  Luke.  Luke 
agrees  in  xiv,  34,  with  Mark  as  against  Matthew  (v,  13), 
and  with  Matthew  against  Mark  in  /jLupaudrj,  but  shows 
the  influence  of  Mark  again  in  aprvdrjaeTaL.  Either 
Mark  follows  Q  very  loosely,  perhaps  from  memory, 
or  Matthew  and  Luke  have  a  different  recension. 

ABOUT   DIVORCE 
(Mk  X,  11-12) 

Matthew  has  doublets  for  this  saying  (Mt  v,  32; 
xix,  9) .  In  the  latter  occurrence  of  the  saying  in  Matthew, 
the  connection  is  the  same  as  that  of  Mark's.  It  is 
omitted  in  that  instance  by  Luke,  presumably  because 
it  is  part  of  a  controversy  with  the  Pharisees.  But  doubt 
is  thrown  upon  the  presence  of  the  saying  in  Q  by  the 
fact  that  it  occurs  twice  in  Mark  also,  and  may  have  been 
taken  from  him  by  Matthew  in  both  instances. 

THE    FIRST   WHO    SHALL   BE    LAST 
(Mk  X,  31) 
This  saying  is  paralleled  in  Luke  (xiii,  30)  and  has 
doublets  in  Matthew  (xix,  30;    xx,  16).     It  apparently 
stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q. 


244  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

true  greatness 

(Mk  X,  43-44) 

There  are  doublets  for  this  saying  in  Mt  xx,  26-27, 
and  xxiii,  11,  and  in  Lk  xxii,  26;  ix,  48.  It  probably 
stood  in  both  Mark  and  Q,  but  this  again  cannot  be 
proved,  since  Mark  also  has  the  saying  twice  (ix,  35). 

ABOUT   FAITH 
(Mk  xi,  23) 
There  is  a  parallel  for  this  saying  in  Lk  xvii,  6,  and 
there  are  doublets  for  it  in  Mt  xvii,  20,  and  xxi,  21.     It 
stood  in  Mark  and  Q. 

AGAINST   THE    PHARISEES 
(Mk  xii,  38-40) 
This  section  is  listed  by  Mr.  Streeter  as  from  Q,  because 
it  "looks  Hke  a  reminiscence  from  a  long  denunciation  in 
Q."     This  is  probably  correct,  but  the  doublets  to  estab- 
lish it  are  lacking. 

THE    HOLY   SPIRIT   SPEAKING    IN    THE    DISCIPLES 

(Mk  xiii,  11) 
This  saying  is  paralleled  in  Mt  x,  19,  and  has  doublets 
in  Lk  xii,  11-12,  and  xxi,  14-15. 

OTHER  MARCAN  PASSAGES  CONSIDERED,  BUT  REJECTED 

In  addition  to  the  passages  assigned  to  Q  in  the  pre- 
ceding investigation,  several  are  suggested  by  Streeter 
and  Wernle.  Streeter  suggests  Mk  xiii,  15-16;  but  the 
doublets  in  Luke  are  apparently  taken  in  both  instances 
from   Mark.     Streeter  thinks  that  xiii,   28-32,    "has   a 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  245 

genuine  sound";    but  there  is  nothing  more  specific  to 
prove  its  presence  in  Q.     Streeter's  suggestion  that  Mk 
i,  2-3,  is  from  Q  seems  unjustifiable.     Vs.  3  is  an  Old 
Testament  quotation  which  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
all  have  in   common.     If   it   stood   originally   in   Mark 
and  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  later  addition,  there  is 
no  occasion  for  the  assumption  of  Q.     Vs.  2  could  hardly 
have  stood  in  its  present  place  when  Matthew  and  Luke 
used  Mark.     It  occurs  in  another  connection  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  (Mt  xi,  10;    Lk  vii,  27),  and  was  probably 
copied  from  there  into  its  present  place  by  a  later  hand. 
Wernle's  additions  to  the  above  Q  material  in  Mark 
do  not  seem  to  be  justified.     Some  of  them,  e.g.,  Mk  xi, 
14,  rest  upon  making  doublets  (in  this  case  Mt  xxi,  19, 
and  vii,  7-8)  where  the  wording  is  not  close  enough  to 
warrant  them.     Others  rest  upon  the  general  character 
of  the  sayings.     The  latter  is  a  tempting  criterion,  and 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  who  demonstrably  make  such 
extensive  use  of  Q,  it  is  more  justifiable  and  has  been 
used  to   some  extent  in  the  preceding   analyses.     But 
in  Mark,  where  Q  is  so  sparingly  and  loosely  used,  it 
cannot  be  safely  employed  aside  from  other  indications, 
especially  the  occurrence  of  doublets. 

The  writer  beheves  that  the  matter  listed  in  the  above 
tabulation  is  about  all  that  can  at  present  safely  be 
assigned  to  Q  in  Mark.  It  yields  us,  as  new  Q  material 
in  Matthew,  sixteen  verses,  and  as  new  Q  material  in 
Luke,  seventeen.  This  would  bring  the  totals  for  Q 
material  in  Matthew  and  Luke  up  to  two  hundred  and 
eighty-three  in  Matthew  and  to  two  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  in  Luke.^  The  number  of  verses  in  Mark  which  can 
be  traced  to  Q  are  about  fifty.     All  but  sixteen  of  these 

1  See  the  reckoning  made  without  inclusion  of  Marcan  Q  on  pp.  162,  218. 


246 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


verses  in  Matthew  and  all  but  seventeen  in  Luke  had 
already  been  assigned  to  Q.  Only  one  stands  in  Mark 
alone. 

TABLE  VI 

Contents  for  Q  Material  in  Mark 


Sec. 


Chap.  Verse 


Subject 

Messianic  announcement  of  the  Baptist.  . 

The  temptation 

The  Beelzebul  controversy 

The  light  and  the  bushel 

Things  hidden  and  revealed 

With  what  measure  (about  judging) .... 

Whoever  has,  to  lilm  shall  be  given 

Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 

Mission  of  the  twelve,  what  to  take,  con- 
duct by  the  way,  if  any  place  does  not 
receive  you 

A  sign  refused 

Conditions  of  discipleship 

About  offenses 

Salt  is  good.     If  the  salt  has  lost,  etc.  . . 

About  divorce 

First  last  and  last  first 

Whoso  would  be  great  among  you 

About  faith 

Against  Pharisaism 

Take  no  thot  what  ye  shall  say 


Source 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 


i,     7-  8 
i,  12-13 

iii,  22-29 

iv,  21 

iv,  22 

iv,  24 

iv,  25 

iv,  30-32 

vi,     7-11 


viii,  12 
viii.  34,  38 

ix,  42 

ix,  49-50 

X,  11-12 

X,  31 

X,  43-44 

xi,  23 
xii,  38-40 
xiii,  11 


The  above  content  being  made  out  for  the  material 
common  to  Mark  and  Q,  the  use  of  Q  by  Mark  may  be 
permitted  to  rest  upon  its  general  probability,  there 
being  nothing  to  contradict  it  or  to  substantiate  the  oppo- 
site hypothesis.  How  closely  Mark  used  Q,  whether 
actually  copying  certain  passages  from  him,  or  merely 
recalling  what  he  had  read  or  heard  read  from  Q,  cannot 
be  determined,  since  what  stood  in  the  text  of  Q  used  by 
Mark  is  only  an  inference  from  what  stood  in  the  recen- 
sions used  by  Matthew  and  Luke. 


DO  THE  VOCABULARY  AND   STYLE  OF  MARK  AND  Q,  RESPEC- 
TIVELY,   THROW    ANY   LIGHT   UPON    THEIR 
LITERARY   RELATIONSHIP? 

The  inquiry  might  perhaps  be  carried  a  step  farther 
by  a  comparison  of  the  vocabularies  of  Mark  and  Q. 


Did  Mark  Also  Use  Q?  247 

Hawkins,  between  the  first  and  second  editions  of  his 
Horae  Synopticae,  made  a  second  and  more  diligent  search 
for  linguistic  peculiarities  in  Q,  and  declares  himself 
unable  to  find  any.  Harnack,  on  the  contrary,  believes 
he  finds  some  such. 

Sentences  in  Q,  according  to  Harnack,  are  generally 
connected  by  kul,  8e  being  used  but  seldom.  The  same 
is  true  of  Mark.  But  this  only  indicates  the  comparative 
nearness  of  both  Mark  and  Q  to  the  Semitic.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  preponderance  of  simple  verbs  in 
distinction  from  compound  in  both  Mark  and  Q.  'Edf  is 
used  twice  as  frequently  as  el;  Mark  also  appears  to  use 
the  former  thirty-six  times  and  the  latter  but  fifteen. 
This  fact  seems  to  have  more  significance  by  reason  of 
the  other,  that  Luke  uses  one  word  thirty-two  and  the 
other  thirty-three  times.  Matthew,  however,  uses  eav 
exactly  twice  as  often  as  el.  When  we  remember  that 
all  we  have  of  Q  is  contained  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and 
only  a  small  portion  of  it  in  Mark,  these  facts  do  seem 
to  indicate  a  preference  for  eav  over  ei  as  between  Mark 
and  Q  on  the  one  side  and  Luke  on  the  other,  but  between 
Mark  and  Q  on  the  one  side  and  Matthew  on  the  other 
no  such  contrast  appears.  Mark  and  Q  are  here  no 
nearer  to  each  other,  or  very  little,  than  either  of  them  is 
to  Matthew. 

The  particle  re  is  never  found  in  Q.^  It  occurs  five 
times  in  Mt  and  seven  times  in  Lk,  and  but  once  in  Mk. 
'12s  in  temporal  clauses  seems  to  be  absent;  it  is  also 
absent  from  Matthew,  while  Luke  uses  it  nineteen  times 
and  Mark  but  once.  Clauses  with  ylpo/jLaL,  frequent  in 
Matthew  and  Luke,  are  absent  from  Q;  they  also  occur 
in  Mark;    but  their  absence  from  Q  may  be  due  simply 

1  still  according  to  Harnack. 


248  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

to  Q's  lack  of  historical  matter.  Ilapd  and  avv  are  absent; 
the  first  is  used  about  evenly  by  Mark  and  Matthew,  and 
more  frequently  by  Luke;  the  second,  three  times  by 
Matthew,  five  times  by  Mark,  and  twenty-four  times  by 
Luke. 

CONCLUSION  AS  TO  MARK's  DEPENDENCE  UPON  Q 

These  facts  do  not  all  point  in  the  same  direction. 
They  seem  sometimes  to  indicate  a  linguistic  affinity 
between  Q  and  Mark,  but  this  affinity  usually  extends 
to  Matthew  also.  What  seems  to  be  proved  by  them  is 
that  Mark  and  Q  and  Matthew  all  stand  nearer  to  the 
Semitic  than  does  Luke.  But  this  is  only  the  obverse 
of  the  statement  that  Luke  is  the  best  Grecist.  It  throws 
no  light  upon  the  literary  relation  of  Mark  and  Q.  Such 
literary  relation,  in  fact,  cannot  in  the  strict  sense  be 
"proved."  It  can  only  be  rendered  probable,  tho  perhaps 
extremely  probable,  by  the  unlikelihood  that  Mark  and 
Q  should  have  fifty  verses  in  common  without  any 
literary  relationship.  Such  relationship  being  assumed, 
the  dependence  is  on  the  side  of  Mark. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  ORIGINAL  ORDER  OF  Q 

The  following  tables  are  intended  to  throw  light  upon 
the  probable  original  order  of  Q.  They  will  also  facilitate 
comparison  of  the  Q  material  in  the  two  tables  of  contents 
given  on  pp.  222-25.  The  section  numbers  at  the  left 
are  those  in  the  tables  for  Matthew  and  Luke  respectively 
on  those  pages.  Table  VII  gives  the  sections  in  the  order 
in  which  they  come  in  Matthew,  with  the  numbers  of  the 
corresponding  sections  as  they  occur  in  Luke;  Table  VIII, 
the  sections  as  they  come  in  Luke,  with  numbers  of  cor- 
responding sections  in  Matthew.  Unduplicated  sections 
are  not  listed. 

Since  Matthew  shows  everywhere  a  tendency  to  group 
his  material  into  discourses,  it  is  a  priori  probable  that 
the  original  order  of  the  Q  material  is  to  be  sought  in 
Luke  and  not  in  Matthew.  Given  this  tendency  to 
combine,  reasons  are  obvious  for  Matthew's  combining, 
in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  much  matter  that  Luke  has 
scattered  thru  his  Gospel.  But  if  the  Q  material  originally 
stood  in  such  continuous  discourses,  no  motive  can  be 
assigned  for  Luke's  breaking  up  these  discourses  and 
scattering  their  material  thru  so  many  chapters.  The 
assumption  that  Matthew  has  combined,  in  his  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  material  which  originally  was  separated  as 
it  still  is  in  Luke,  is  corroborated  by  an  analysis  of  that 
Sermon,  which  shows  it  to  be  anything  but  a  unity. 
Much  of  the  material  which  Matthew  has  combined 
into  this  Sermon  has  no  duplicate  in  Luke.     There  is 

249 


250 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


no  means  of  telling  where  in  Matthew's  Q  this  undupli- 
cated  material  stood.  But  the  fact  that  the  duplicated 
matter  has  been  brot  forward  by  Matthew  from  later 


TABLE  VII 


Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

1 

=  1 

30  = 

=  46 

50 

=  23 

63  = 

=  19 

83 

=  79 

2 

=   2 

31 

=  73 

52 

=  29 

63  = 

=  74 

84 

=  77 

3 

=   3 

32 

=  51 

53 

=  30 

64  - 

=  33 

86 

=  89 

4 

=   4 

33 

=   9 

54 

=  24 

65 

=  36 

86 

=  38 

7 

=   5 

34 

=  12 

54 

=  31 

68 

=  41 

91 

=  47 

11 

=   6 

36 

=  40 

55 

=  32 

68 

=  49 

92 

=  47 

12 

=  73 

37 

=   7 

55 

=  28 

69 

=  14 

93 

=  67 

13 

=  20 

36 

=  64 

56 

=  50 

70 

=  43 

94 

=  81 

14 

=  75 

40 

=  13 

57 

=  11 

71 

=  45 

95 

=  86 

17 

=  61 

41 

=  15 

58 

=  48 

72 

=  44 

96 

=  82 

20 

=  76 

42 

=  16 

58 

=  21 

73 

=  42 

97 

=  92 

22 

=   8 

44 

=  17 

59 

=  59 

74 

=  22 

98 

=  55 

23 

=   8 

45 

=  66 

60 

=  70 

75 

=  37 

99 

=  56 

26 

=  39 

46 

=  25 

60 

=  84 

76 

=  62 

27 

=  78 

47 

=  27 

61 

=  34 

77 

=  63 

29 

=  53 

48 

=  23 

62 

=  18 

82 

=  10 

TABLE  VIII 


Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Lk 

Mt 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

1  = 

=   1 

16  = 

=  42 

33  = 

=  64 

49  = 

=  68 

74  = 

=  63 

2  = 

=   2 

17  = 

=  44 

34  = 

=  61 

50  = 

=  56 

75  = 

=  14 

3  = 

=   3 

18 

=  62 

36  = 

=  65 

51  = 

=  32 

76  = 

=  20 

4  - 

=   4 

19 

=  63 

37  - 

=  75 

53  = 

=  29 

77  = 

=  84 

5 

=   7 

20 

=  13 

38 

=  86 

55 

=  98 

78  = 

=  27 

6 

=  11 

21 

=  58 

39 

=  26 

56  = 

=  99 

79  = 

=  82 

7a 

=  37 

22 

=  74 

40 

=  36 

59  - 

=  59 

81  = 

=  94 

8 

=  22 

23 

=  48 

41 

=  68 

61 

=  17 

82  = 

=  96 

8 

=  23 

24 

=  54 

42 

=  73 

62 

=  76 

84  = 

=  60 

9 

=  33 

25 

=  46 

43 

=  70 

63 

=  77 

85  ■- 

=  17 

10 

=  82 

27 

=  47 

44 

=  72 

64 

=  38 

86 

=  15 

11 

=  57 

28 

=  55 

45 

=  71 

66 

=  45 

89 

=  86 

12 

=  34 

29 

=  52 

46 

=  30 

67 

=  93 

13 

=  40 

30 

=  53 

47 

=  91 

70 

=  60 

14 

=  69 

31 

=  54 

47 

=  92 

73 

=  12 

15 

=  41 

32 

=  55 

48 

=  58 

73o 

=  31 

chapters  in  Luke  would  give  the  presumption  that  such 
of  the  unduplicated  material  as  has  no  necessary  unity 
where  it  stands  also  stood  in  QMt,  not  at  the  begin- 
ning where  it  now  is,  but  later;  and  this  is  also  what  we 
should  expect. 


Original  Order  of  Q  251 

Taking  the  hint  that  Luke's  order  probably  represents 
the  original  order  of  the  Q  material,  we  find  this  supposi- 
tion confirmed  by  the  present  arrangement.  In  spite 
of  Matthew's  transpositions,  the  sections  in  Luke  and 
Matthew,  as  grouped  in  Table  IX,  still  stand  in  the  same 
relative  order. 

TABLE  IX 

Lk    Mt 

1=1  The  preaching  of  the  Baptist 

2=2  The  messianic  announcement  of  the  Baptist 

3=3  The  temptation 

4=4  Blessed  are  the  poor 

5=7  Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger 

6  =  11  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  hate  you 

8  =  23  Love  your  enemies 

13  =40  Tree  known  by  its  fruits 

15=41  Why  call  ye  me  "Lord,  Lord"  ? 

16=42  House  on  rock  and  sand  (with  and  without  foundation) 

17=44  The  centurion's  servant  healed 

18  =  62     Question  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  Jesus'  answer 
19=63    Jesus'  testimony  to  John 

25  =  46     Two  men  who  would  follow  Jesus 

27  =  47    The  harvest  is  great,  the  laborers  are  few 

29=52  Instructions  to  disciples  as  to  what  to  take  on  journey 

30  =  53  Conduct  on  the  way;  greet  the  house 

31  =54  Whoever  receives  you,  receives  you  not 

32  =  55  More  tolerable  for  Sodom 

47  =  91     Woes  upon  the  Pharisees 

47=92     Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (take  away  the  key  of 
knowledge) 

55  =  98     The  watching  servant 
56=99     The  true  and  false  servants 

62  =  76    Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed 

63  =  77     Parable  of  the  Yeast 

81  =94     The  day  of  the  Son  of  man 

82  =96     The  days  of  Noah 


252  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

Each  of  these  groups — one  of  seven  sections,  two  of 
four,  and  six  of  two  sections  each — probably  stood,  within 
itself,  in  the  same  order  as  that  in  which  we  now  find  it 
in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

The  sections  grouped  in  Table  X  have  suffered  such 
slight  transpositions  as  to  make  it  probable  that  each  of 
the  groups  constituted  a  continuous  passage,  probably 
in  the  order  preserved  by  Luke. 

TABLE  X 

Lk    Mt 

21  =58  Things  hidden  and  revealed 

23=48  The  mission  of  the  twelve 

24  =  54  Whoever  shall  not  receive  you 

25  =  46  Two  men  who  would  follow  Jesus 

27  =  47  The  harvest  is  great,  the  laborers  are  few 

28  =  55  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  among  wolves 

29  =52  Instructions  as  to  what  to  take  on  journey 

30  =  53  Greet  the  house 

31  =54  Whoever  receives  you 

32  =  55  More  tolerable  for  Sodom 
33=63  Woes  upon  Galilean  cities 
34=61  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  me 

36  =  65     Wise  and  prudent;    all  things  are  given  unto  me  of  my 
Father 

41  =68  The  Beelzebul  controversy 

42=73  About  backsliding,  "empty,  swept  and  garnished" 

43  =70  The  sign  of  Jonah 

44  =  72  Queen  of  the  South 
45=71  The  men  of  Nineveh 

49  =  68     Blasphemy  against  the  Son  of  man 

48  =  58     Fearless  confession;  be  not  afraid  of  them 

50  =  56     Take  no  thot  what  ye  shall  answer 

51  =32     About  care 

53=29     About  treasures,  not  on  the  earth 

81  =94     The  day  of  the  Son  of  man 

82  =  96     The  days  of  Noah 

85=97     The  one  taken,  the  other  left 

86  =  95     Where  the  body  is,  there  the  eagles  will  be  gathered 


Original  Order  of  Q  253 

There  is  one  other  item,  which  I  owe  to  Mr.  Streeter/ 
that  strongly  supports  the  assumption  that  Luke  has 
preserved  the  Q  material  in  its  most  nearly  original  form. 
That  is,  that  Luke  allows  himself  much  less  liberty  in 
the  rearrangement  of  Mark's  order  than  does  Matthew. 
The  best  single  testimony  to  his  faithfulness  to  Mark's 
order  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  where  he  makes  his  great 
omission  from  Mk  (Mk  vi,  45 — viii,  26),  beginning  at 
that  point  his  great  interpolation  (Lk  ix,  51 — xviii,  14), 
he  does  not,  after  returning  to  Mark,  go  back  and  pick  up 
any  single  item  that  he  has  omitted.  Detached  sayings, 
some  brief,  and  some,  like  the  Beelzebul  controversy,  of 
considerable  length,  which  he  places  in  a  different  con- 
nection from  that  in  which  Mark  gives  them,  can  uni- 
formly be  shown  to  have  stood  in  Q  as  well  as  in  Mark,^ 
and  Luke  follows  Q's  order  with  Q's  wording.  Li  the 
earlier  part  of  his  narrative,  Luke  does  permit  himself 
some  little  freedom  in  deviating  from  Mark's  order; 
notably  in  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  call 
of  the  first  disciples,  and  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  (in 
each  case,  apparently,  at  the  expense  of  some  anachro- 
nism). Except  for  these  instances  his  transpositions  of 
Marcan  material  are  slight,  and  usually  amount  rather 
to  its  rearrangement  within  a  single  section  than  to 
a  genuine  change  of  order  in  the  structure.  An  exception 
to  this  rule  is  his  passion  narrative,  where  his  use  of  Mark 
is  greatly  influenced  by  his  special  source. 

Q  was  apparently  a  collection  of  sayings,  without 
chronological  framework  or  data  of  any  sort.  But  to  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  there  was  prefixed  a  slight  account  of 
the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist.     This  will  not  seem 

1  Oxford  Studies,  p.  146. 

2  See  pp.  234-46  for  material  in  Marls  and  Q. 


254  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

strange  when  it  is  remembered  that  Q  was  a  Palestinian 
document,  and  that  the  cult  of  John  the  Baptist  long 
survived  the  origin  of  Christianity.  What  is  not  so 
easy  to  explain  is  Q's  apparent  inclusion  of  one  narrative, 
the  story  of  the  centurion's  servant.  It  also  contained  an 
account  of  the  sending  out  of  the  twelve,  but  apparently 
no  reference  to  the  passion.  The  absence  of  narratives, 
or  of  any  chronological  hints,  would  make  its  rearrange- 
ment easy;  perhaps  it  suffered  some  derangement  at 
the  hands  of  those  who  added  the  sections  peculiar  to 
Matthew's  and  Luke's  recensions  (as  it  did  at  the  hands 
of  Matthew  himself),  and  who  are  responsible  for  some 
of  the  deviations  between  the  two.  As  Mr.  Streeter 
suggests,  if  Mark  were  lost,  we  could  not,  from  Matthew 
and  Luke,  be  sure  either  of  Mark's  content  or  his  order. 
No  more  can  we  of  Q.  About  all  that  can  be  said  is  that 
the  strong  probability  is  that  Luke  more  nearly  than 
Matthew  reproduces  that  order. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  positions  reached  in  this  study  may  be  gathered 
up  in  a  few  brief  statements: 

1.  Matthew  and  Luke  depend  for  the  structure  of 
their  Gospels,  and  for  practically  all  of  their  narrative 
material,  upon  Mark. 

2.  In  the  order  of  Marcan  material,  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  made  such  changes  as  were  desirable  from  the  use 
to  which  they  wished  to  put  this  matter.  Matthew  has 
made  fewer  omissions,  Luke  fewer  transpositions. 

3.  The  changes  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have  made 
in  the  substance  or  wording  of  the  Marcan  material, 
including  their  omissions  from  it,  may  be  accounted 
for  by  a  desire  to  produce  a  better  literary  form,  to 
avoid  statements  that  offended  the  growing  sentiment 
of  the  church,  and  to  adapt  their  own  narrative  to 
their  own  public.  Some  changes  must  go  unaccounted 
for. 

4.  The  hypothesis  of  a  more  primitive  form  of  Mark 
in  the  hands  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  not  demanded  by 
the  facts.  Matthew  and  Luke  used  substantially  our 
Mark. 

5.  Matthew  and  Luke  also  used  a  document  Q,  whose 
content,  within  limits,  is  well  agreed  upon. 

6.  Various  facts,  especially  translation  variants,  require 
the  assumption  that  this  Q  was  originally  an  Aramaic 
document,  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke  respectively,  in 


256  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

two  Greek  translations  that  went  back  to  two  different 
Aramaic  texts. ^ 

7.  This  furnishes  the  clue  for  the  analysis  of  Q  into 
QMt  and  QLk,  and  for  the  assignment  to  these  two 
recensions  of  Q  of  much  material  which  has  hitherto 
been  assigned  to  unknown  sources. 

8.  Mark  has  some  literary  dependence  upon  Q;  but 
the  Q  which  he  knew  was  an  earlier  form  than  those 
in  the  hands  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

9.  The  original  order  of  Q  is  best  seen  in  the  order  of 
the  Q  material  preserved  in  Luke. 

'  A  note  by  Professor  Sanders  says,  quite  correctly,  that  "The  general 
agreement  in  translation  words  requires  that  one  of  tliese  translations 
should  have  proceeded  and  influenced  the  other." 


INDEXES 


INDEXES 


I.     PASSAGES  CITED 


Mark: 


i,  7-8,  p.  237. 

i,  9-11,  pp.  37.  237-38. 

i,  12-13,  p.  238. 

i,  16-20,  21-28,  pp.  38,  95. 

i,  29-31,  pp.  38. 

i,  32,  p.  100. 

i,  32-34,  p.  39. 

i,  35-38,  pp.  39-40. 

i,  40-45,  p.  41. 

ii,  1-12,  pp.  41-42. 

ii,  9-10,  p.  93. 

ii,  13-22,  p.  42. 

ii,  23-28,  p.  43. 

ii,  25-26,  p.  94. 

iii,  1-19,  pp.  44-45. 

iii,  7-8,  p.  101. 

iii,  20-30,  pp.  45,  72-73. 

iii,  20-29,  pp.  238-39. 

iii,  31 — iv,  12,  p.  45. 

iv,  1-33,  p.  77. 

iv,  13-20,  p.  46. 

iv,  21-25,  p.  47. 

iv,  24-25,  p.  239. 

iv,  30-32,  pp.  47,  240. 

iv,  35-41,  pp.  47-48. 

V,  1-20.  pp.  48-49. 

v.  21-43,  pp.  49-50,  72. 

vi,  1-6,  p.  51. 

vi,  6-13,  pp.  51-52. 

vi,  7-11,  p.  241. 

vi,  14-16,  pp.  52-53. 

vi,  17-29,  pp.  53-54. 

vi,  30-44,  pp.  54-55. 

vi,  45-52,  pp.  ,55-56. 

vi,  45 — viii,  26,  pp.  92-93. 

vi,  53-56,  p.  56. 

vii,  1-23,  pp.  56-57. 

vii,  24-30,  p.  57. 

vii,  32-37,  p.  74. 

viii,  1-21,  p.  57. 

viii,  12,  p.  241. 

viii,  22-26,  p.  74. 

viii,  27-33,  p.  58. 

viii,  34-35,  pp.  241-42. 

viii,  34 — ix,  1,  pp.  58-59. 

viii,  38,  p.  242. 

ix,  2-13,  59. 

ix,  11-13,  p.  73. 

ix,  14-32,  pp.  60-61. 

ix,  33-48,  p.  61. 

ix,  42-48,  p.  242. 

ix,  49-50,  p.  243. 

X,  11-12,  pp.  61,  243. 

x,  13-45,  p.  62. 

X,  29,  pp.  101-2. 

X,  31,  p.  243. 

X,  43-44,  p.  244. 

X,  46-52,  p.  63. 

xi,  1-11,  p.  63. 

xi,  12-14,  p.  64. 

xi,  20-25,  p.  64. 

xi,  23,  p.  244. 


Mark — continued 

xii,  i-12,  p.  65. 
xii,  3,  pp.  102-3. 
xii,  18-27,  p.  65. 
xii,  28-40,  p.  66. 
xii,  38-40,  p.  244. 
xiii,  9-20,  p.  66. 
xiii,  11,  p.  244. 
xiii,  24-32,  p.  67. 
xiv,  1,  p.  103. 
xiv,  3-9,  73. 
xiv,  12,  pp.  104-5. 
xiv,  22-25,  p.  68. 
xiv,  25,  p.  73. 
xiv,  28,  p.  73. 
xiv,  32-54,  p.  68. 
xiv,  .58,  p.  73. 
xiv,  66-72,  p.  69. 
XV,  21-32,  p.  69. 
XV,  42,  p.  105. 


Matthew: 


259 


iii,  7-10,  p.  129. 

iii,  11-12,  p.  130. 

iii,  13-17,  p.  37. 

iv,  3-11,  pp.  130-31. 

iv,  18-22,  pp.  38,  95-96. 

iv,  25,  p.  101. 

V,  3,  p.  131. 

V,  4-5,  p.  167. 

V,  5-6,  p.  132. 

V,  7-10,  pp.  167-68. 

V,  11-13,  pp.  132-33. 

V,  14,  p.  169. 

V,  15,  pp.  47,  133-34. 

V,  16,  p.  169. 

V,  17,  19-24,  27-28,  pp.  170-71. 

V,  18,  p.  135. 

V,  25-26,  p.  135. 

V,  29-30,  p.  171. 

V,  31,  pp.  171-72. 

V,  31-32,  p.  61. 

V,  33-37,  p.  172. 

V,  39-40,  pp.  135-36. 

V,  41,  p.  172. 

V,  43,  p.  173. 

V,  44-48,  pp.  135-36. 

vi,  1-4,  pp.  173-74. 

vi.  5-8.  p.  174. 

vi,  9-13,  p.  136. 

vi,  16-18,  p.  175. 

Vi,  19-23,  p.  137. 

vi.  24-33,  p.  138. 

vii,  1-5,  p.  139. 

vii,  6,  pp.  175-76. 

vii,  7-11,  pp.  139-40. 

vii,  12-14,  p.  140. 

vii,  15,  p.  176. 

vii,  16-18,  p.  141. 

vii,  19-20,  p.  177. 

vii,  21-23,  pp.  141-42. 


260 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


ISIatthew — continued 

vii,  24-27,  p.  143. 
vii,  28,  pp.  177-78. 
vii,  28-29,  p.  38. 
viii,  1-4.  p.  41. 
viii,  5-10,  pp.  143-45. 
viii,  11-12,  pp.  145-46. 
viii,  13,  pp.  178-79. 
viii,  14-15,  pp.  38-39. 
viii,  16,  p.  100. 
viii,  16-17,  p.  39. 
viii,  19-22,  p.  146. 
ix,  1-8,  p.  41. 
ix,  5-6,  pp.  93-94. 
ix,  9-13,  p.  42. 
ix,  13,  p.  179. 
ix,  14-17,  p.  42. 
ix,  18-26,  pp.  49-50. 
ix,  27-31,  p.  179. 
ix,  32-34,  p.  180. 
ix,  35,  pp.  51-52. 
ix,  37-38.  p.  146. 
X,  2-4,  pp.  44-45. 
X,  5-8,  p.  180. 
X,  10-13,  pp.  146-47. 
X,  15,  p.  147. 
X,  16,  p.  148. 
X,  16-25,  pp.  180-81. 
X,  19-20,  p.  148. 
X,  24-25,  p.  148. 
X,  26-33.  pp.  149-.50. 
X,  34-36,  p.  150. 
X,  37-39,  pp.  150-51. 
X,  40,  p.  151. 
X,  41-42,  pp.  180-81. 
2-27,  p.  152. 

14,  p.  181. 

15,  p.  182. 
20,  p.  182. 
23-24,  pp.  182-83. 
28-30,  p.  183. 

,  1-8,  p.  43. 

,  3-4,  p.  94. 

,  .5-7,  p.  184. 

,  9-21.  p.  44. 

,  17-21,  p.  184. 

,  22-37.  p.  45. 

,  27-28,  p.  153. 

,  30,  p.  153. 

,  34,  p.  184. 

,  36-37,  p.  185. 

,  38-42,  p.  153. 

,  40,  p.  185. 

,  43-45,  p.  154. 
ii,  16-33,  p.  154. 
ii,  18-23,  p.  46. 
ii,  24-30,  p.  185. 
ii,  44-52,  pp.  186-87. 
53-58,  p.  51. 
xlv,  1-2,  pp.  52-53. 
xiv,  3-12,  pp.  53-54. 
xiv,  13-21,  pp.  .54-55. 
xiv,  22-33,  pp.  55-56. 
xiv,  28-31,  p.  187. 
xiv,  34-36,  p.  56. 
XV,  1-20,  p.  56. 
XV,  14,  p.  155. 
XV,  21-28,  p.  57. 
XV,  22-24,  pp.  187-88. 
XV,  29-31,  pp.  188-89. 


Matthew — continued 

XV,  32-39,  p.  57. 
xvi,  1-12,  p.  57. 
xvi,  13-23,  p.  58. 
xvi,  17-19,  p.  189. 
xvi.  24-28.  pp.  58-59. 
xvii,  1-8,  p.  59. 
xvii,  6-7,  p.  189. 
xvii,  9-13,  p.  59. 
xvii,  14-23,  p.  60. 
xviii,  1-5,  p.  61. 
xviii,  4,  pp.  189-90. 
xvlii,  6-9,  p.  61. 
xviii,  7,  p.  156. 
xviii,  12-14,  p.  156. 
xviii,  21-22,  p.  157. 
xviii,  23-35,  p.  190. 
xlx,  10-12,  p.  190. 
xix,  13-15,  p.  62. 
xix,  16-30,  p.  62. 
xix,  28.  p.  157. 
xix,  29,  p.  101. 
XX,  1-16,  p.  190. 
XX,  17-28,  p.  62. 
XX,  29-34,  p.  63. 
xxi.  1-11,  p.  63. 
xxi,  18-27,  p.  64. 
xxi,  33-46,  p.  65. 
xxi,  28-32,  p.  191. 
xxi,  35,  p.  102. 
xxii,  1-14,  p.  191. 
xxii,  34-40,  p.  66. 
xxii.  41-46.  p.  66. 
xxiii.  2-3,  p.  191. 
xxiii,  4,  pp.  157-58. 
xxiii,  5,  8-10,  p.  191. 
xxiii.  12-13.  p.  158. 
xxiii,  15-22,  p.  191. 
xxiii,  2.3-26.  p.  159. 
xxiii,  29-31,  p.  159. 
xxiii,  34-36.  p.  160. 
xxiii.  37-39,  p.  161. 
xxiv,  9-22,  p.  66. 
xxiv,  26-28,  p.  161. 
xxiv,  34-36.  p.  67. 
xxiv,  37-39.  pp.  161-62. 
xxiv,  40-41,  p.  162. 
xxiv,  43-51,  p.  162. 
XXV,  1-46,  pp.  191-92. 
xxvi,  2,  p.  103. 
xxvi,  17,  p.  104. 
xxvi,  26-29,  p.  68. 
xxvi,  36-58,  p.  68. 
xxvi,  52-54,  p.  192. 
xxvi,  67-68,  pp.  104-5. 
xxvi,  69-75.  p.  69. 
xxvii.  32-44.  p.  69. 
xxvii,  57,  p.  105. 


Luke: 


III, 
iii, 
iii. 


iv. 


7-9,  p.  129. 
10-14,  p.  193. 
16-17,  p.  130. 
21-22,  p.  37. 
3-13,  p.  130. 
16-30,  pp.  51,  194. 
31-39,  p.  38. 
40,  p.  100. 


Indexes 


261 


Luke — continued 

iv,  40-43,  p.  39. 
V,  1-11,  pp.  38,  40. 
V,  12-26,  p.  41. 

V,  23-24,  pp.  93-94. 

V,  27-39,  p.  42. 

vi,  1-5,  p.  43. 

vi,  3-4,  p.  94. 

vi,  6-19,  p.  44. 

vi,  17,  p.  101. 

vi,  20,  p.  131. 

vi,  21,  p.  132. 

vi,  22-23,  pp.  132-33. 

vi,  24-26,  pp.  194-95. 

vi,  27-30,  32-36,  p.  135 

vi,  31,  p.  140. 

vi,  37-38,  p.  139. 

vi,  38,  p.  47. 

vi,  39,  p.  155. 

vi,  40,  p.  148. 

vi,  43-44,  p.  141. 

vi,  47-49,  p.  143. 

vii,  1-9,  pp.  143-45. 

vii,  18-35,  p.  152. 

vii,  29-30,  p.  195. 

vii,  36-50,  p.  195. 

vii,  41-42,  p.  139. 

viii,  4-10,  p.  45. 

viii,  11-15,  p.  46. 

viii,  16-18,  p.  47. 

viii,  19-21,  p.  45. 

viii,  22-25,  p.  47. 

viii,  26-39,  pp.  48-49. 

viii,  40-56,  pp.  49-50. 

ix,  1-6,  pp.  51-52. 

i.x,  7-9.  pp.  52-53. 

i.x,  10-17,  pp.  54-55. 

ix.  18-22,  p.  58. 

ix,  23-27,  p.  58-59. 
ix,  28-36,  p.  59. 
ix,  37-45,  p.  60. 
ix,  46-50,  p.  61. 
ix.  57-60,  p.  146. 
ix,  60-63,  p.  196. 
X,  2,  p.  146. 
X,  3,  p.  148. 
X,  5-8,  p.  147. 
X,  12,  p.  147. 
X,  13-15,  p.  152. 
X,  16,  p.  151. 
X,  17-20,  p.  196. 
X,  21-22,  p.  152. 
X,  23-24,  p.  154. 
X,  25-28.  pp.  66,  197. 
X,  29-37,  p.  197. 
X,  38-42,  p.  197. 
xi,  2-4,  pp.  136-37. 
xi,  5-8,  p.  198. 
xi,  9-13,  pp.  139-40. 
xl,  14-23,  p.  45. 
xi,  19-20,  p.  153. 
xi,  23,  p.  153. 
xi,  24-26,  p.  154. 
xi,  27-28,  p.  198. 
xi,  29-32,  p.  153. 
xi,  33,  pp.  133-34. 
xi,  34-35,  pp.  137-38. 
xi,  36,  p.  198. 
xi,  39-42,  p.  159. 
xi,  47-48,  p.  159. 


Luke — continued 

xi,  49-51,  p.  160. 

xii,  2-9,  p.  149. 

xii,  11-12,  p.  148. 

xii,  13-21,  p.  198. 

xii,  22-31,  p.  138. 

xii,  33-34,  p.  137. 

xii,  35-38,  p.  198. 

xii,  39-40,  p.  162. 

xii,  42-46,  p.  162. 

xii,  47-50,  p.  199. 

xii,  51-53,  p.  150. 

xii,  58-59,  p.  135. 

xiii,  1-5,  p.  199. 

xiii,  6-9,  p.  200. 

xiii,  18-19,  p.  47. 

xiii,  20-21,  p.  154. 

xiii,  23-24,  p.  140. 

xiii,  26-27,  pp.  141-42. 

xiii,  28-29,  pp.  145-46. 

xiii,  31-33.  pp.  200-201. 

xiii,  34-35,  p.  161. 

xiv,  1-6,  p.  201. 

xiv,  7-11,  pp.  201-2. 

xiv,  11,  p.  158. 

xiv,  12-24,  p.  202. 

xiv,  26-27,  pp.  150-51. 

xiv,  28-35,  p.  203. 

xiv,  34,  p.  133. 

XV,  1-7,  p.  203. 

XV,  4-7,  p.  156. 

XV,  8-32,  p.  203. 

xvi,  18,  p.  61. 

xvi,  1-12,  pp.  203-4. 

xvi,  14-15,  p.  204. 

xvi,  17,  p.  135. 

xvi,  19-31,  p.  205. 

xvii,  1,  p.  156. 

xvii,  1-2,  p.  61. 

xvii,  4,  p.  157. 

xvii,  6,  p.  155. 

xvii,  7-19,  p.  205. 

xvii,  9-13,  p.  59. 

xvii,  20-21,  pp.  205-6. 

xvii,  23-24,  26-27,  p.  161. 

xvii,  26-27,  p.  161. 

xvii,  33,  pp.  150-51. 

xvii,  34-35,  p.  162. 

xvii,  37,  p.  161. 

xviii,  1.5-17,  p.  62. 

xviii,  18-30,  p.  62. 

xviii,  29,  p.  101. 

xviii,  31-34,  p.  62. 

xviii,  35-43,  p.  63. 

xix,  28-38,  p.  63. 

XX,  1-8,  p.  64. 

XX,  9-19,  p.  65. 

XX,  10,  p.  102. 

XX,  27-40,  p.  65. 

XX,  45-47,  p.  66. 

xxi,  12-24,  pp.  66-67. 

xxi,  32-33,  p.  67. 

xxii,  1,  pp.  103-4. 

xxii,  7,  p.  104. 

xxii,  15-20,  p.  68. 

xxii,  28-30,  p.  157. 

xxii,  39-55,  p.  68. 

xxii,  56-62,  p.  69. 

xxiii,  26-43,  p.  69. 

xxiii,  54,  pp.  10.5-6. 


262 


Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 


II.     GENERAL  INDEX 


Abbott,  E.  A.,  90. 
Angels,  twelve  legions  of,  192. 
Arrest  of  Jesus,  68. 
Assimilation,  91,  92,  242. 
Authority  of  Jesus  questioned,  64- 
65. 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  65,  108,  173,  234. 

Bartimeus,  63. 

Bartlet,  J.  V.,  60,  108,  212. 

Beatitudes,  131-32. 

Beelzebul  controversy,  238-39. 

Birt,  36. 

Blessing  of  the  children,  62. 

Blind  leaders,  155. 

Brotherhood  of  Jesus,  45. 

Burkitt,  F.  C  109,  112,  206. 

Burton,  144,  217. 

Calling  of  the  first  disciples,  38. 

Canaanitish  woman,  57. 

Care,  138. 

Centurion's  son,  143-45,  178-79. 

Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in 

Marcan  narratives,  chap.  iv. 
Changes  of  Matthew  and  Luke  in 

Marcan  order,  Table  I,  24-27. 
"Come  unto  me,"  183. 
Conflation,  191,  240. 
Crucifixion,  69. 

Danger  of  riches,  62. 

Dependence  of  Luke  upon  Matthew, 

98,  99. 
Dependence  of  Matthew  upon  Luke 

impossible,  98. 
Detached  sayings,  47. 
Disciples,   instructions  to,    146-51, 

180-81. 
Disciples,  mission  of,  51-52 
Di-sciples,  return  of.  54-55. 
Discipleship,  demands  of,  58. 
Distress,  predictions  of,  66-67. 
Doublets,  190,  239,  241-45. 

Elijah,  59. 

Entry  into  Jerusalem,  63-64. 

Epileptic  boy,  60. 

Evil  husbandmen,  65. 

Feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  54-55. 
Feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  57. 
Fig  tree  cursed,  64. 

Gadarene  demoniac,  48,  49. 

Genealogies,  98. 

Gennesaret,  56. 

Gethsemane,  68. 

Golden  Rule,  140. 

Goodspecd,  E.  J.,  72. 

Great  Commandment,  66,  197. 

Great  Omission  of  Luke,  35,  92,  93. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  37,  110,  111,  112. 

114,  115. 
— ,  On  content  of  Q,  108-19  passim, 

126,  142,  165,  178,  191,  212,  234, 

247. 


Hawkins,  Sir  John,  VI,  9,  15,  16,  33, 
58,67,70,84,85,110,111,112,114. 

—  on  content  of  Q.  108-19  passim, 
164,  165,  170,  191.  208,  211,  247. 

Healings  in  the  evening.  39. 

Herod,  judgment  concerning  Jesus, 
52-53. 

Historic  present  in  Mark,  85. 

Holtzmann,  J.  H.,  214. 

Huck,  Adolph,  v. 

Infancy  section:  in  Luke,  211;  in 
Matthew,  208. 

Jairiis'  daughter,  49-50. 
Jerusalem,  lament  over,  161. 
Jerusalem  narrative,  10. 
Jerusalem  tradition,  199-200. 
John    the   Baptist:     death   of.    53; 

preaching  of,  129;    preaching  of, 

in  Luke,  193. 
Jonah,  153,  185. 
Judaistic  features  in  Matthew,  167. 

168.  170,  172,  176,  180,  188. 
JiUicher,  Adolf,  73,  125,  144,  211. 

Kingdom  of  Heaven,  eschatalogical 
meaning  of,  166. 

Last  Supper,  68. 

Leper  healed,  41. 

Logia,  97. 

Loisy,  A.,  73,  183. 

Lord's  Prayer,  136-37. 

Lost  Sheep,  parable  of,  156. 

Luke's  Great  Interpolation.  8-9. 

Luke's  Great  Omission,  7,  8,  227- 

228. 
Luke;  matter  peculiar  to,  207,  210- 

18;     single    tradition    of,    206-7; 

source  peculiar  to,  217-18. 

Mark:  his  use  of  Q,  234-48;  frame- 
work of,  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 
3-13;    words  peculiar  to,  85-87. 

Matthew,  matter  peculiar  to,  207- 
10;  not  a  source  for  Luke, 
Robinson  Smith's  argument  on, 
100-107;  single  tradition  of, 
206;  tendency  to  condensation, 
189;  messianic  proclamation  of, 
130. 

Monteflore,  C.  G..  183. 

Motives  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  70, 
71. 

Mustard  Seed,  parable  of,  47. 

Narrow  gate,  parable  cf,  140. 
Nazareth,  preaching  in,  51. 

Offences,  61. 

Omission   of   Marcan   material   by 

both  Matthew  and  Luke,  30,  31. 
Omissions  of  Luke,  32-36. 
Order,  deviations  in,  chap.  ii. 
Order  of  narratives  of  the  Synoptics, 

chap.  ii. 
Oxford  Studies,  vi. 


Indexes 


263 


Parable  of  the  Sower,  45;  interpre- 
tation of,  46;  of  Treasure,  Pearl, 
Fish-net,  Converted  Scribe,  186- 
87. 

Parables  peculiar  to  Luke,  197,  198, 
200,  202,  203,  205. 

Parables,  purpose  of,  45. 

Paralytic  healed.  41. 

Parousia,  67,  180. 

Passion  narrative,  12,  13. 

Perean  source,  214-17. 

Peter:  calling  of,  40,  194;  confes- 
sion of  messiahship,  58;  denial 
of,  69. 

Peter's  mother-in-law,  38. 

Petrine  strand  in  Mark,  75-76,  83- 
84. 

Pharisaic  accusation,  45. 

Pharisees,  66,  153,  158,  159,  204. 

Prediction  of  sufferings,  58,  60,  62. 

Primary  and  secondary  elements  in 
Mark:  according  to  von  Soden, 
74-77;  according  to  Wendling, 
74-87. 

Primary  and  secondary  traits,  187, 
188;  in  Mark  and  Q,  235;  in 
Luke,  200;   priority  of,  3-16. 

Q:  existence  and  content  of,  108- 
20;  analysis  of,  by  Wellhausen, 
Wernle,  Weiss,  Hawkins,  and 
Harnack,  112;  distribution  of ,  in 
Matthew,  112-13;  Mark,  over- 
lapping of,  114;  general  agree- 
ment as  to  nucleus  in  Matthew, 
114-15;  in  Luke,  content  accord- 
ing to  Wellhausen,  Wernle,  Weiss 
Hawkins,  and  Harnack,  116-19 
distribution  of  in  Luke,  119, 
necessity  for  further  extension  of, 
120;  originally  an  Aramaic  docu- 
ment, 123-25;  translation  vari- 
ance, 124,  125;  analysis  into 
QMt;  and  QLk,  126-65;  in 
single  tradition  of  Luke,  193-220; 
in  single  tradition  of  Matthew, 
166-92;  original  order  of ,  249-54. 

QMt,  QLk:  meaning  of  the  sym- 
bols, 127;  advantages  of  the 
hypothesis,  219,  221-33. 

Resistance  and  non-resistance,  135- 

36. 
Retirement  of  Jesus,  39. 
Ropes,  J.  H.,  181. 
Rordam,  T.  S.,  72. 

Sadducees,  65. 

Sanday,  W.,  89,  212-13,  219,  234. 

Sanders,  H.  A.,  98. 

Schmeidel,   Paul,   46,   67,   73,    135, 

139,  170,  175,  203. 
Seats  in  the  Kingdom,  62. 
Secondary  traits  in  Q,   QMt,   and 

QLk,  230-33. 
Seeking  and  finding,  139. 
Sermon    on    the    Mount,    sayings 

from,  133-43,  167-78. 
Seventy,  return  of  the,  196. 
Sign  demanded,  57. 


Smith,  Robinson,  100,  107  passim, 
173. 

Soden,  von,  H.  H.,  74-84  passim. 

Special  source  of  Luke,  197,  201, 
202,  203;    meaning  of,  192. 

Stanton,  V.  H.,  112,  171,  228. 

Storm  on  the  lake,  47. 

Streeter,  H.  B.,  114,  131,  180,  197, 
198,  200,  202,  203,  204,  212,  234, 
244,  253,  254. 

Strife:  about  rank,  61 ;  among  rela- 
tives, 150. 

Summary  and  conclusions,  255-56. 

Synagogue  at  Capernaimi,  38. 

Tables:  I,  order  of  Marcan  material 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  24-27; 
II,  Q  material  in  Matthew  accord- 
ing to  five  scholars,  110,  111;  III, 
Q  material  in  Luke  according  to 
five  scholars,  116-17;  IV,  Q  ma- 
terial in  Matthew,  222-23;  V,  Q 
material  in  Luke,  224-25;  VI,  Q 
material  in  Mark,  246;    VII  and 

VIII,  on  relative  order  of  Q  mat- 
ter in  Matthew  and  Luke,  250; 

IX,  sections  in  Q  material  in  their 
order  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  251; 

X,  sections  in  Q  material,  slightly 
rearranged  in  order,  252. 

Temptation,  130;    in  Mark  and  Q, 

238. 
Things  that  defile,  56-57. 
Transfiguration,  59. 
Translation  variants,  240. 
Transposition:     in    Luke,    70;     in 

Mark,  72-74. 
Tree  and  fruits,  141. 
Twelve:   calling  of  the  44;   mission 

of,  in  Mark  and  Q,  241. 
Two  foundations,  143. 

Unknown  exorcist,  32,  61. 
Ur-Marcus,  72,  88-93. 

Verbal  resemblance  illustrated,  93- 

96. 
Vocabulary  in  Mark  and  Q,  246-48. 
Votaw,  C.  W.,  173. 

Widow's  mite,  32. 

Walk  thru  the  corn,  43. 

Walking  on  the  sea,  55. 

Weiss,  B.,  108. 

Weiss,  J.,  46,  110,  111,  112. 

—  on  content  of  Q,  108-10  passim, 
134,  191,  194. 

Wellhausen,   J.,   37.    55,    73,    110, 

111,  112,  115. 
■ —  on  content  of  Q,  108-19  passim, 

133,  150,  183,  191,  198,  234,  240. 
Wendling,  E.,  74-87,  228. 
Wernle,  Paul,  vi,  32,  37,  65,   110, 

111,  115. 

—  on  content  of  Q,  108-19  passim, 
191,  198,  210,  234,  244,  245. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  69. 
Withered  hand,  44. 

Yeast,  a  saying  about,  57. 


THE    MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

64  -  66  FIFTH  AVENUE  ::  ::  ::  NEW  YORK 


University  of  Michigan  Studies 

HUMANISTIC  SERIES 

General  Editors:  FRANCIS  W.  KELSEY  and  HENRY  A.  SANDERS 

Size,  22.7X15.2  cm.     8°.     Bound  in  cloth 

Vol.  I.  Roman  Historical  Sources  and  Institutions.  Edited 
by  Professor  Henry  A.  Sanders,  University  of  Michigan. 
Pp.  viii+402.     $2.50  net. 

CONTENTS 

1.  The  Myth  ABOUT  Tarpeia:   Professor  Henry  A.  Sanders. 

2.  The  Movements  of  the  Chorus  Chanting  the  Carmen  Saeculare  : 
Professor  Walter  Dennison,  Swarthmore  College. 

3.  Studies  in  the  Lives  of  Roman  Empresses,  Julia  Mamaea:   Pro- 
fessor Mary  Gilmore  Williams,  Mt.  Holyoke  College. 

4.  The  Attitude  of  Dio  Cassius  toward  Epigraphic  Sources:    Pro- 
fessor Duane  Reed  Stuart,  Princeton  University. 

5.  The  Lost  Epitome  of  Livy:   Professor  Henry  A.  Sanders. 

6.  The   Principales    of  the   Early  Empire:    Professor    Joseph  H. 
Drake,  University  of  Michigan. 

7.  Centurions  as  Substitute  Commanders  of  Auxiliary  Corps:  Pro- 
fessor George  H.  Allen,  University  of  Cincinnati. 


Vol.  II.  Word-Formation  in  PROVENgAL.    By  Professor  Edward 
L.Adams,  University  of  Michigan.    Pp.  xvii+607.    $4.00  net. 


Vol.  III.  Latin  Philology.  Edited  by  Professor  Clarence 
Linton  Meader,  University  of  Michigan.  Pp.  viii+290. 
$2.00  net. 

Parts  Sold  Separately  in  Paper  Covers: 

Part  I.  The  Usage  of  idem,  ipse  and  Words  of  Related  Meaning.  By 

Clarence  L.  Meader.     Pp.  1-112.     $0.75. 
Part  II.    A  Study  in  Latin  Abstract  Substantives.      By  Professor 

Manson  A.  Stewart,  Yankton  College.     Pp.  113-78.     $0.40. 
Part  III.    The  Use  of  the  Adjective  as  a  Substantive  in  the  De 

Rerum  Natura  of  Lucretius.     By  Dr.  Frederick  T.  Swan.    Pp. 

179-214.    $0.40. 

Part  IV.  Autobiographic    Elements    in    Latin    Inscriptions.     By 
Professor  Henry  H.  Armstrong,  Drury  College.     Pp.  215-86.     $0.40. 


University  of  Michigan  Studies  —  Continued 


Vol.  IV.   Roman  History  and  Mythology.    Edited  by  Professor 
Henry  A.  Sanders.    Pp.  viii+427.    $2.50  net. 

Parts  Sold  Separately  in  Paper  Covers: 

Part  I.    Studies  in  the  Life  of  Heliogabalus.     By  Dr.  Orma  Fitch 

Butler,  University  of  Michigan.     Pp.  1-169.     $1.25  net. 
Part  II.  The  Myth  of  Hercules  at  Rome.     By   Professor  John  G. 

Winter,  University  of  Michigan.     Pp.  171-273.     $0.50  net. 
Part  III.   Roman  Law  Studies  in  Livy.    By  Professor  Alvin  E.  Evans, 

Washington  State  College.     Pp.  275-354.     $0.40  net. 
Part  IV.   Reminiscences  of  Ennius  in  Silius  Italicus.    By  Dr.  Loura 

B.  Woodruff.     Pp.  355-424.     $0.40  net. 


Vol.  V.  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  By  Rev.  Dr.  Carl 
S.  Patten,  First  Congregational  Church,  Columbus,  Ohio. 
Pp.  xiii-l-263.     I1.30  net. 


Size,  28  X  19  cm.    4°. 

Vol.  VI.  Athenian  Lekythoi  with  Outline  Drawing  in 
Glaze  Varnish  on  a  White  Ground.  By  Arthur  Fair- 
banks, Director  of  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston.  With 
15  plates,  and  57  illustrations  in  the  text.  Pp.  x+371. 
Bound  in  cloth.     $4.00  net. 


Vol.  VII.  Athenian  Lekythoi  with  Outline  Drawing  in 
Dull  Color  on  a  White  Ground,  and  an  Appendix: 
Additional  Lekythoi  with  Outline  Drawing  in  Glaze 
Varnish  on  a  White  Ground.  By  Arthur  Fairbanks. 
With  41  plates.    Pp.  x-l-275.     Bound  in  cloth.    I3.50  net. 


Vol.  VIII.  The  Old  Testament  Manuscripts  in  the  Freer 
Collection.  By  Professor  Henry  A.  Sanders,  University  of 
Michigan. 

Part  I.  The  Washington  Manuscript  of  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua. 

With   3    folding    plates    of    pages  of   the   Manuscript   in   facsimile. 

Pp.  vi+104.     Paper  covers.     $1.00. 
Part  II.  The  Washington  Manuscript  OF  THE  Psalms.     {In  Press.) 


Vol.  IX.  The  New  Testament  Manuscripts  in  the  Freer 
Collection.  By  Professor  Henry  A.  Sanders,  University  of 
Michigan. 

Part  I.  The  Washington  Manuscript  of  the  Four  Gospels.    With 

5  plates.    Pp.  viii-l-247.     Paper  covers.    $2.00. 
Part  II.    The  Washington  Fragments  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.    (In 

Preparation.) 


University  of  Michigan  Studies  —  Continued 


Vol.  X.  The  Coptic  M^xtscripts  ix  the  Freer  Collection. 
By  Professor  William  H.  WorreU,  Hartford  Semrnaty  Founda- 
tion.    (/«  Preparation.) 


\'0L.  XI.     COXTRIBUTIOXS    TO    THE    HISTORY    OF    SCIEXCE.       (1)1 

Press.) 

Part  I.  Robert  of  Chester's  Lates  Transl.\tion'  of  the  .Axgebra  of 
.\L-KHOW.\Rizin.  With  an  Introduction,  Critical  Notes,  and  an  English 
Version.  By  Professor  Louis  C.  Karpinski,  University  of  Michigan. 
With  4  plates  showing  pages  of  manuscripts  in  facsimile,  and  25 
diagrams  in  the  text.     (In  Press.) 

Part  n.  The  PRODROirrs  of  Nicholas  Steno's  Latix  Dissertation  on 
A  Solid  Body  Enclosed  by  Xatttral  Process  mithin  a  Solid. 
Translated  into  English  by  Professor  John  G.  Winter,  Universitj'  of 
Michigan.  With  a  Foreword  bv  Professor  William  H.  Hobbs. 
(In  Press.) 


Vol.  XII.   Studles  ix  East  Christlax  .\xd  Romax  Art. 

Part  I.  E.\ST  Christlan  P-atntings  in  the  Freer  Collection.  By 
Professor  Charles  R.  Morey,  Princeton  University.  With  13  plates 
(10  colored)  and  34  illustrations  in  the  text.  Pp.  xii-fS;.  Bound  in 
cloth.     $2 .  50. 

Part  n.  A  Gold  Treasure  of  the  Late  RoiLAN  Period  from  Egy-pi. 
By  Professor  Walter  Dennison,  Swarthmore  College,     (/n  Press.) 


Vol.  Xin.  DocuiiEXTS  from  the  Cairo  Gexizah  ix  the 
Freer  Collectiox.  Text,  with  Translation  and  an 
Introduction  by  Professor  Richard  Gottheil.  Columbia  Uni- 
versity.    {In  Preparation.) 


SCIENTIFIC  SERIES 

Size  2SX1S.5  cm.     4"^.     Bound  in  cloth 

Vol.  I.  The  Ctrctlatiox  axd  Sleep.  By  Professor  John  F. 
Shepard.  UmVersity  of  Michigan.  Pp.  X+S3.  with  an  Atlas 
of  S^  plates,  bound  Separately.     Text  and  Atlas,  S3. 00  net. 


Vol.  II.  Studies  ox  Divergent  Series  axd  Summability.  By 
Professor  Walter  B.  Ford,  University  of  Michigan.  (In 
Preparation.) 


University   of  Michigan   Publications 

University  of  Michigan  Publications 
HUMANISTIC  PAPERS 

Size,  22.7  X  15.2  cm.     8°.     Bound  in  cloth 

Latin  and  Greek  in  American  Education,  with  Symposia  on 
THE  Value  op  Humanistic  Studies.  Edited  by  Francis  W. 
Kelsey.    Pp.  x+396.     $1.50. 

CONTENTS 

The  Present  Position  of  Latin  and  Greek,  the  Value  of  Latin  and 
Greek  as  Educational  Instruments,  the  Nature  of  Culture 
Studies. 

Symposia  on  the  Value  of  Humanistic,  particularly  Classical, 
Studies  as  a  Preparation  for  the  Study  of  Medicine,  Engineer- 
ing, Law,  and  Theology. 

Symposia  on  the  Value  of  Humanistic,  particularly  Classical, 
Studies  as  a  Training  for  Men  of  Affairs;  on  the  Classics  and 
the  New  Education;  and  on  the  Doctrine  of  Formal  Discipline 
in  the  Light  of  Contemporary  Psychology. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE  NEW  YORK 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE  ::  ::  ::  NEW  YORK 

Handbooks  of  Archaeology 
and  Antiquities 

Edited  by  Percy  Gardner,  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  and 
Francis  W.  Kelsey,  of  the  University  of  Michigan. 

The  Principles  of  Greek  Art 

By  Percy  Gardner,  Litt.D.,  Lincoln  and  Merton  Professor 
of  Classical  Archaeology,  University  of  Oxford. 

Makes  clear  the  artistic  and  psychological  principles  under- 
lying Greek  art,  especially  sculpture,  which  is  treated  as  a  charac- 
teristic manifestation  of  the  Greek  spirit,  a  development  parallel  to 
that  of  Greek  literature  and  religion.  While  there  are  many  hand- 
books of  Greek  archaeology,  this  volume  holds  a  unique  place. 

Illustrated,  doth,  $2.25;  postpaid,  $2.46 

Greek  Architecflure 

By  Allan  Marquand,  Ph.D.,  L.H.D.,  Professor  of  Art  and 
Archaeology  in  Princeton  University. 

Professor  Marquand,  in  this  interesting  and  scholarly  volume, 
passes  from  the  materials  of  construction  to  the  architectural  forms 
and  decorations  of  the  buildings  of  Greece,  and,  lastly,  to  its  monu- 
ments. Nearly  four  hundred  illustrations  assist  the  reader  in  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  subject. 

Cloth,  $2.25;  postpaid,  $2.45 


Greek  Sculpture 


By  Ernest  A.  Gardner,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Archaeology  in 
University  College,  London. 

A  comprehensive  outline  of  our  present  knowledge  of  Greek 
sculpture,  distinguishing  the  different  schools  and  periods,  and 
showing  the  development  of  each.  This  volume,  fully  illustrated, 
fills  an  important  gap  and  is  widely  used  as  a  textbook. 

Cloth,  $2.50;  postpaid,  $2.67 


Greek  Con^itutional  Hi^ory 


By  A.  H.  J.  Greenidge,  M.A.,  Late  Lecturer  in  Hertford  Col- 
lege and  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

Most  authors  in  writing  of  Greek  History  emphasize  the 
structure  of  the  constitutions ;  Mr.  Greenidge  lays  particular  stress 
upon  the  workings  of  these  constitutions.  With  this  purpose  ever 
in  view,  he  treats  of  the  development  of  Greek  public  law,  distin- 
guishing the  different  types  of  states  as  they  appear. 

Cloth,  $1.25;  postpaid,  $1.35 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE  ::  ::  ::  NEW  YORK 

Greek  and  Roman  Coins 

By  G.  F.  Hill,  M.A.,  of  the  Department  of  Coins  and  Medals 
in  the  British  Museum. 

All  the  information  needed  by  the  beginner  in  numismatics,  or 
for  ordinary  reference,  is  here  presented.  The  condensation  neces- 
sary to  bring  the  material  within  the  size  of  the  present  volume 
has  in  no  way  interfered  with  its  clearness  or  readableness. 

Cloth,  $2.25;  postpaid,  $2.38 


Greek  Athletic  Sports  and  Fe^ivals 

By  E.  Norman  Gardiner,  M.A.,  Sometime  Classical  Exhibitor 
of  Christ  Church  College,  Oxford. 

With  over  two  hundred  illustrations  from  contemporary  art, 
and  bright  descriptive  text,  this  work  proves  of  equal  interest 
to  the  general  reader  and  to  the  student  of  the  past.  Many 
of  the  problems  with  which  it  deals — the  place  of  physical  training, 
games,  athletics,  in  daily  and  national  life — will  be  found  as  real  at 
the  present  time  as  they  were  in  the  far-oflf  days  of  Greece. 

Cloth,  $2.50;  postpaid,  $2.66 


Athens  and  Its  Monuments 

By  Charles  Heald  Weller,  University  of  Iowa. 

This  book  embodies  the  results  of  many  years  of  study  and  of 
direct  observation  during  different  periods  of  residence  in  Athens. 
It  presents  in  concise  and  readable  form  a  description  of  the 
ancient  city  in  the  light  of  the  most  recent  investigations.  It  is 
profusely  illustrated  with  half-tones  and  line  engravings. 

$4.00  net;  postpaid,  $4.23 


The  De^ru(5tion  of  Ancient  Rome 

By  Rodolfo  Lanciani,  D.C.L.,  Oxford;  LL.D.,  Harvard;  Pro- 
fessor of  Ancient  Topography  in  the  University  of  Rome. 

Rome,  the  fate  of  her  buildings  and  masterpieces  of  art,  is  the 
subject  of  this  profusely  illustrated  volume.  Professor  Lanciani 
gives  us  vivid  pictures  of  the  Eternal  City  at  the  close  of  the  different 
periods  of  history. 

Cloth,  $1.50;  postpaid,  $1.63 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE  ::  ::  ::  NEW  YORK 


Roman  Fe^ivals 

By  W.  Warde  Fowler,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Sub-Rector  of 
Lincoln  College,  Oxford. 

This  book  covers  in  a  concise  form  almost  all  phases  of  the 
public  worship  of  the  Roman  state,  as  well  as  certain  ceremonies 
which,  strictly  speaking,  lay  outside  that  public  worship.  It  will 
be  found  very  useful  to  students  of  Roman  literature  and  history  as 
well  as  to  students  of  anthropology  and  the  history  of  religion. 

Cloth,  $1.2 j;  postpaid,  $1.37 


Roman  Public  Life 


By  A.  H.  J.  Greenidge,  M.  A.,  Late  Lecturer  in  Hertford  College 
and  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

The  growth  of  the  Roman  constitution  and  its  working  during 
the  developed  Republic  and  the  Principate  is  the  subject  which 
Mr.  Greenidge  here  set  for  himself.  All  important  aspects  of 
public  life,  municipal  and  provincial,  are  treated  so  as  to  reveal  the 
political  genius  of  the  Romans  in  connection  with  the  chief  prob- 
lems of  administration. 

Cloth,  $2.50;  postpaid,  $2.63 


Monuments  of  the  Early  Church 

By  Walter  Lowrie,  M.A.,  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Rome. 

Nearly  two  hundred  photographs  and  drawings  of  the  most 
representative  monumental  remains  of  Christian  antiquity,  accom- 
panied by  detailed  expositions,  make  this  volume  replete  with 
interest  for  the  general  reader  and  at  the  same  time  useful  as  a 
handbook  for  the  student  of  Christian  archaeology  in  all  its 
branches. 

Cloth,  $1.25;  postpaid,  $1.39 


Monuments  of  Chri^ian  Rome 

By  Arthur  L.  Frothingham,  Ph.D.,  formerly  Professor  of 
Archaeology  and  Ancient  History  in  Princeton  University. 

"The  plan  of  the  volume  is  simple  and  admirable.  The  first 
part  comprises  a  historical  sketch;  the  second,  a  classification  of 
the  monuments." — The  Outlook. 

Profusely  illustrated.  Cloth,  $2.25;  postpaid,  $2.43 


Date  Due 

r  1  2  *40 

,^...**«***^*'*^ 

P^' 

p  ^4  '- 

'^^'PWBii 

k. 

DE8     5 

^^fc*taiaiilB 

■* 

JA25'5/ 

J/1 : 

R{pR>% 

V 

IT 

f^, , 

■i^s'^r- 

' 

nii0^^^^ 

(HMMDNiMnw^/^ 

i**'**'ff''19!r 

t 

/ 

, 

■  ...    _-. 

JU;\  igi;j 

TS 

W^R  3, 

? 

^ 

f.i 


